HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:15:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.234852.17538@mel.dit.csiro.au> ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
>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"?

No, I am not sure that for every instance in the Australian community
a case can be made that the Fightback initiatives provide an inproved
circumstance, I can however be sure that for the majority
of the poor cases it is at least a slight win, and with the decreased
cost of labour it also increases the likelihood of a slowdown
in job shedding by industry and hopefully an increase in employment
in the mid term.

>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?

You shouldn't you should make your voting judgement on your own terms
hopefully with regard to:
- the likelihood that employment will increase.
- the likelihood that the changes are funded.
- the likelihood that the ecomomy will grow.
- the ability of the nation to sustain a $16B federal deficit.
- the ability of the nation to sustain a $20B current acct deficit.
- the ability of the nation to sustain the "ratchet" approach to
  wages and conditions.
- the intellegence/compassion of using unemployment and interest rates
  as the only means of stabilising an economy
- the looming reality that the next quarter figures will show that OZ
  GDP is falling again.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain)
Subject: Re: Brendan Jones in the red corner, Daniel Lam in the blue corner
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:38:52 GMT

In <dyfl.723948077@munagin> dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
>john@physiol.su.OZ.AU (John Mackin) writes:
>>This is almost incredible.  Brendan makes the excellent point that
>>(at least in the universe _he_ sees) there seems to be more around
>>than meets the jaundiced eye.  Daniel responds that he doesn't
>>want to get into metaphysics!!

>No I don't want to get into metaphysics, which is what talk of
>dimensions of the world is without concrete illustrations about how
>this justifies various forms of state action which have been
>advocated around here.

I guess you didn't get it, then..

>BTW, does anybody even remotely agree with me?

From the limited sample space, it would be a good guess to say no.

Marty.
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
Martin J. Gleeson  | Computer Science, Melbourne Uni, Oz |    ...  __o    Outta
gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au |     E Pluribus Unix         |  ...   -\<,       my
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us." - Addams |  ....(_)/(_)..  way!
 "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." - The Wizard of Oz
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
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 04:19:53 GMT

gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:

>Not that I would complain if I were to see Japan's economy go down the
>toilet for being the most restrictive and protectionist in history,

That is the natural consequence of protectionism.

>but perhaps you would care to explain what you mean by "virtually collapsed"?

To put it in a nutshell, the prices of those things which foreigners
are barred from selling (e.g. certain foods) are going through the
roof, while the prices of those things which foreigners are barred
from buying (e.g. real estate) are going through the floor.

>After all, Japanese have a captive market who can either buy their goods
>and services, or go without. Perhaps the Japanese are starving in protest
>against the companies that imorally crush the competition in foreign
>markets to make profits that help toward employing them?

What are you complaining about?  That the Japanese produce things for
the rest of the world to enjoy without enjoying the products of the
rest of the world?  Sounds terribly generous to me.

This kind of attitude is just old-fashioned mercantilism.

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.

The mercantilist position with regard to international trade is
similar.  We need to export in order to pay for the imports which we
enjoy so much.  Therefore exports are good and imports bad.  This is
entirely fallacious.  Yet it seems that crude mercantilism pervades
popular economic notions.
--
	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: chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby)
Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Distribution: aus
Date: 11 Dec 92 06:27:30 GMT

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 (:-)
-- 
Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd		Internet: chris@softway.sw.oz.au

PHONE:	+61-2-698-2322	"I'm waiting for X-Windows to become just that;
FAX:	+61-2-699-9174	 Ex-Windows" - A McGrath.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: production == consumption?
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:59:01 GMT

chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>Unless you save the production too. That is, return it to the capital
>you started with; the thing that provides you with the raw materials
>of production in the first place; the earth.

Yes, saving and capital accumulation is very important, as it
increases future production.  But the end of production is always
consumption.  Why do the owners of factors of production decide to
use these factors to produce something?  Because someone wants the
product and is willing to pay for it.  The product is either consumed
directly or is used itself as a factor of production to produce
another thing which may be either consumed directly or is used itself
... and so on.  But if a production process doesn't result in
something which consumers want, the entrepreneur who embarked on it
will go bankrupt.

--
	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: csh@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au (Chris Heath)
Subject: Re: JJJ take it off.. no way!
Reply-To: csh@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au (Chris Heath)
Organization: University of NSW
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:39:52 GMT


In article <6916@otc.otca.oz>, brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
|>in article <dyfl.723684681@phobos>, dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) says:
|>> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
|>>>Daniel Lam once again proves that his sole measure for the worth of any
|>>>aspect of human existance is an economic one.
|>> I have no objection to you or anyone else wasting your money on
|>> whatever you want.  I just get mad when you force others to pay for
|>> you, while insisting that it's for their own good.
|>
|>We all hope (possibly in vain) that one day Daniel will mature and discover
|>that there are dimensions in the world other than monetary ones and that
|>peaceful societal interaction requires some compromising of individual wishes
|>(or "force" in Daniel's language) for the greater (often non quantifiable, at
|>least in Daniel's measures) good.
|>
|>It appears that Daniel simply does not even have the *capacity* to understand
|>the subtleties of societal interaction, possibly because they are outside the
|>bounds of his experience of the world, hence aren't part of his schema.
|>
|>BTW, how old are you?
|>

Nicely said.....this sounds like a debate i had with him a few months
ago on immigration.....obviously the message didnt sink in:-)

Chris Heath

no .sig coz im an individual.....honest
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
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:50:23 GMT

In article <chris.724054042@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>In <1992Dec10.210326.804@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>
>>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. But it is fair to say that not many of this group would be natural
>Liberal voters...

Well at least it is in the interest of the Liberal party to attempt
to minimise the number of people that fit this profile, I wonder who
benefits by their numbers increasing? It certainly isn't the country
as a whole.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: harold@cs.uq.oz.au (Andrew Wood)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Date: 18 Dec 92 06:55:07 GMT
Reply-To: harold@cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: aus

In <dyfl.724644608@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:

>gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:
>>The point is that having government is a good way to have an approximately
>>objective value judgement. Of course value judgements are always subjective
>>in nature. Otherwise we wouldn't be individuals. But proposing anarchy
>>as a solution to this perceived conflict in value judgements is not
>>the answer because you conveniently leave humans and basic rights such as
>>equality and justice out of the equation.

>The market is precisely the insitution which harmonizes the
>subjective judgements of various people.  And it does not leave
>humans out of the equation.  Market phenomena are the result of human
>action.

So, basically what you are saying is that in your system, people vote with
their dollars. The more dollars you have, the more your vote counts.
I was brought up in Queensland where some people had more voting power than
others. I did not enjoy it and I would not suffer it to happen again.

>>So you say. So because people want a fair start in life for their children and 
>>equality and justice for all, that makes them communists/socialists/statists?
>>(so you imply).

>No, but the means which they advocate are statist.  There is nothing
>wrong with that by itself, of course.  I may not like the state, but
>other people obviously do.  What I do try to point out is that
>interventionist policies often fail to achieve the objectives of
>those who advocate them as well as an unhampered market.

Concrete examples please. 
I don't believe that you can substantiate this last claim.

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: gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain)
Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:08:25 GMT

In <dyfl.724400876@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:
>gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:
>>Really? Japan must really be in a hopeless economic state then...

>The Japanese economy is in deep trouble.  Their domestic markets have
>virtually collpased, owing mainly to the lack of foreign competition.

Not that I would complain if I were to see Japan's economy go down the
toilet for being the most restrictive and protectionist in history,
but perhaps you would care to explain what you mean by "virtually collapsed"?
After all, Japanese have a captive market who can either buy their goods
and services, or go without. Perhaps the Japanese are starving in protest
against the companies that imorally crush the competition in foreign
markets to make profits that help toward employing them?


Marty.
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
Martin J. Gleeson  | Computer Science, Melbourne Uni, Oz |    ...  __o    Outta
gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au |     E Pluribus Unix         |  ...   -\<,       my
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us." - Addams |  ....(_)/(_)..  way!
 "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." - The Wizard of Oz
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
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 04:09:42 GMT

mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>Fine, let them fully pay for it. Your argument also says
>that we should not account for the extra environmental cost
>of carting water from one side of the globe to the other.
>The cost of petrol does not include the environmental cost
>involved, i.e. the depletion and/or devaluation of our major
>capital asset the planet. I find it amazing that people who
>talk about free markets etc never want to include that
>capital on the balance sheet.

By all means, include it.  But in order for it to be genuine capital
accounting and not pulling numbers out of the hat, you need to
internalize the costs with a some system of environmental property
rights.

>	Increasing our foriegn debt for no good reason. I
>	don't mind if they want to do that, but let them pay
>	for it fully. 

But they do pay for it fully!  They may include a bit the foreign
debt of Australia.  But there's no such person as "Australia" who has
to repay our debt.  The national debt is an aggregate of debts owed
by all Australian individuals, companies and goverments.  Any
particular piece of it is owed by some individual, company, or
government.

>	Wasting and depleting capital resources. Again let
>	them pay for it fully so they are truly aware of the
>	costs and can make an informed decision.

Whose capital resources?  They decide to embark on consumption of
their capital.  What have you got against that.

>Have you distinguished needs from wants here. The need is
>good quality pottable water, the want is a trendy brand
>name.

This is a spurious distinction.  Please list the things that are
needs.  Are my needs the same as yours?  What if I disagree with
you?  What if I value the trendy brand name more highly than good
quality water?  Granting that anything you say is a need is indeed a
need, how should we treat needs differently from luxuries?

As I have repeatedly argued, there is no such thing as an objective
measure of utility.  This is not something I made up.  It is the
fundamental insight of modern economics, leading to the theory of
marginal utility.  It seems that people don't have a very good grasp
of the concept.  So let me ask everyone who's got time to waste one
question:  present a method for measuring value?

--
	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
Subject: Re: Medicare == manslaughter?
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:58:15 CST
 <chris.723264293@suite.sw.oz.au> <1992Dec2.045208.22267@cs.su.oz.au>   
 <chris.723340440@suite.sw.oz.au> <1992Dec9.034423.28404@cs.su.oz.au> <chris.723878971@suite.sw.oz.au>
Distribution: aus

chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:

>>Could this be because universality means that the govt has to dole
>>out money so that people like me can get 75% of my medical bills paid
>>even though I would be willing and able to pay for it myself??
One of the reasons that there is a rule against paying the
gap is that that would be inflationary in the cycle that
Chris describes. The other problem with the US system is the
cost of law suits.

>>Isn't it about time that you trendy psuedo-socialists stop and think
Very emotive language here.
>>that these policies are actually hurting (and in this case killing)
>>the people that should be protected?????
I certainly agree there are an awful lot of things that need
to be improved about the public health system and I also
think that the govt's current effort to squeeze out private
service providers is a recepie for disaster.

>It would be nice to be able to afford infinite resources for health.
>But how do you propose that we fund this. Don't tell me that cutting
>the insurance companies in on the act is going to reduce the costs of
>providing health services.

One of the things that pisses me off about the health system
is bulk billing. There is a bulk billing clinic near me.
Their prices are so low that the only way they can make
money (100% from the govt) is to overservice. It's $17 govt
money per visit. They try to get you to come back each day
for a medical certificate. My own private GP charges $21
and gives 20 min as opposed to 5 min consultations. I would
rather pay the extra $4 and have real service. I also
suspect that bulk billing centers provide a service to the
community - provision of medical certificates for those who
want them.


>Actually, I agree very strongly with the last part of this paragraph.
>I just don't see how the alternative (as proposed) is going to do it.
>After all, we have had Ray's system before, and Medicare was introduced
>to fix it. Perhaps if we could work out a way to make doctors' fees
>behave according to a free market model...

One thing I agreed with in fightback was the idea to force
more high income earners onto private insurance, but think
the rest of their policy was an inflationary spiral.
All people should still pay the medicare levy (which should
reduce if more people went on private).

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
DSTO ITD/SE 171 Labs          		Fax: +61 8 259 5589
PO Box 1500				Telex: AA82799
Salisbury SA 5108, Australia		michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Cream skimming considered beneficial
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:30:49 GMT

In article <6984@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

>One thing I'm sure I will get agreement on is the prospect of a Coalition
>government selling off AOTC in its first term to attempt to plug Fightback!'s
>numerous holes.  Certainly in the current economic climate and the drugged
>state of the stock market, such a float would be disastrous.
>
>Not only is there serious doubt about the stock market's ability to absorb a
>float the size of 5% of Australia's GDP, there is also serious doubt that such
>a rushed sale would return anything like AOTC's true value.
>
>Also, it is extremely unlikely that it would be able to be purchased purely 
>by Australian investors.  If every single man, woman and child in the country
>bought an equal share, they'd each need $1200.

Another statistic is that if the above figure ($20 billion) is compared with
the total value of shares on the Australian stockmarket (around $170 billion)
then Telecom's value is 12% of the present total stockmarket value.  If Telecom
is floated, then either a lot of new money has to go into the stockmarket
(which will happen to some degree) or the value of present shares will drop
significantly (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if you want to
buy shares after the float).

>One particularly nice thing about the deregulated telecommunications
>environment in Australia is that we have a 100% Australian owned carrier that
>has a real chance to become a global player.
>
>That would most likely evaporate in any forseeable float if it became just
>another multinational pawn.

Chris O'Neill
Telecom Research Labs
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dave@eram.esi.COM.AU (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Optus v AOTC.  The Facts. (was Re: Cream-Skimming)
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:17:42 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Pacific ESI, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
X-Witty-Saying: "Mobius strip - see other side for instructions"

In article <6948@otc.otca.oz>,
    brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

| So you don't have any friends or relatives who live out of town or overseas?
| You'd be one of the few!!

Well, I'm one of them - is that so unusual?  Then again, I'm a fairly
anti-social bugger anyway...

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
dave@esi.COM.AU                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:55:54 GMT

speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose) writes:
>I suppose it depends on how well you beat the slaves. They might not
>be as productive as paid workers but the BIG difference is you don't
>pay slaves!

Well you have to keep them alive and fit enough to render useful
services.

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.