Australian Politics Forum - support coalition = reject economics

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

support coalition = reject economics
Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:01pm

There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt...

This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71

In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #1 - Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

Come up with threads that blame Rudd for this then we'll discuss about the economics of these actions

Like I said in the other threads - in context of total carbon being like a forest of 100 trees how many trees are humans responsible for?

If we are responsible for 1 tree out of the whole forest then discussing the economics of Carbon Tax vs Direct Action is talking about how a twig impacts a tree because the twig only represent 1.35% of this tree

I am NOT trying to stifle your economic debate

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty then you'll understand why the Direct Action plan will be better in the long run

Happy to explain it to you - but how will you understand if you won't admit that Rudd got us into this mess.

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #2 - Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:15pm BTW - I don't really consider you as a lefty so the next comment don't apply to you But none of the lefties is smart enough to even raise the topic that you've raised let alone have a decent debate about Kyoto Buzz tries, so does adel
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

cods Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 88048	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #3 - Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:16pm that pretty interesting FD.. you admit the Libs got it right in the year 2007,, strange I could have swore you claimed they got Nothing right!!!.. if they were right then! why wouldnt they be right now???
Back to top	IP Logged

Swagman Gold Member Offline Beware of cheap imitations...... Posts: 15095 Illawarra NSW Gender:	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #4 - Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:20pm cods wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:16pm: that pretty interesting FD.. you admit the Libs got it right in the year 2007,, strange I could have swore you claimed they got Nothing right!!!.. if they were right then! why wouldnt they be right now??? Because if the Libs aren't right they're Labor...
Back to top	IP Logged

The_Barnacle

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #5 - Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:26pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming.

But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

Back to top

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.

IP Logged

Swagman Gold Member Offline Beware of cheap imitations...... Posts: 15095 Illawarra NSW Gender:	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #6 - Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:44pm Quote: But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda Hmm I must have logged into the OZ Science forum by mistake instead of the OZ Politics forum? There are some non-lefty scientists you know.
Back to top	IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #7 - Sep 8^th, 2011 at 10:06pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming.

But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

You may give the answer but there are no references for your answer

So where are your references?

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #8 - Sep 9^th, 2011 at 8:57pm

Quote:

In addition - you failed to acknowledge why both sides of politics are trying to find a carbon solution. HINT: It starts with Rudd and ends with "ratified Kyoto"

So you keep saying, and I keep asking you to validate this claim, and you keep failing. Need we go through this yet again?

Quote:

I am interested in a balance debate where everyone acknowledge the cause of it and why we are doing it

There are plenty of those around here. But in those threads you only want to discuss the economics.

Quote:

Once you admit and understand the cause is Kyoto penalty

But you don't even know what that penalty is. Even if Kyoto is the reason, is that a rational argument for Abbott's plans that will harm the economy?

Quote:

strange I could have swore you claimed they got Nothing right!!!

No point making stuff up cods.

Quote:

So where are your references?

Maqqa where are your references about the Kyoto penalties? And no I don't mean a link to an article about Rudd signing it. I mean something a bit beyond your blind insistance that there are penalties and what they are.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #9 - Sep 9^th, 2011 at 9:17pm Quote: There are some non-lefty scientists you know. Yep, they're the ones who'll insist the moons made of green cheese if you pay them enough.
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #10 - Sep 9^th, 2011 at 9:19pm Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:15pm: BTW - I don't really consider you as a lefty so the next comment don't apply to you But none of the lefties is smart enough to even raise the topic that you've raised let alone have a decent debate about Kyoto Buzz tries, so does adel Creepy brown noseing bastard
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

Life_goes_on Gold Member Offline Posts: 4772 400kms south of Yobsville, Qld Gender:	Re: support coalition = reject economics Reply #11 - Sep 9^th, 2011 at 9:28pm I'd be careful.... pick on Maqqa too much and you risk getting done for child abuse.
Back to top	"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013 Num num num num. IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #12 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:28am

freediver wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:01pm:

There is growing publicity around the coalition's apparent rejection of mainstream economics. So far this has been fairly subtle, for example when Greg Hunt tried to claim that the coalition's 'direct action' plan is in fact a market mechanism:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#greg-hunt...

This is starting to get a bit less subtle, in a way that does not bode well for the coalition. Here is an example of a coalition supporter broadly rejecting economics in defence of the coalition. If only these coalition supporters would speak up more often!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/47#47

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1315037615/71#71

In my opinion, this sort of thing could mark a significant turning point in the public debate.

maqqua is first to play the deflection game but i spose you've noticed they only have one trick!

IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID... GO MINING BOOM YEHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Lol, I wonder how many liberal voters still smoke the crack and brag about the Liberal Party-collective-business-acumen these days!??!

Lol, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh LOL!!! Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #13 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:34am

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:15pm:

BTW - I don't really consider you as a lefty so the next comment don't apply to you

But none of the lefties is smart enough to even raise the topic that you've raised let alone have a decent debate about Kyoto

Buzz tries, so does adel

GO MINING, YEHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

GO Liberal Party-collective-business-acumen : I wish I had some crack to smoke and tell my mates about Peter Costellos cosmic relationship with interest rates, lol!

I AM ACTUALLY ROLLING ON THE FLOOR Cheesy

REMEMBERING ALL THE JOKES WHO USED TO GET HIGH AND SCREAM AT THE TOP OF THEIR LUNGS HOW MUCH OF A GENIUS PETER COSTELO WAS!!!

Shocked

IDIOTS WHO VOTE LIBERAL AND WENT TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ENDED UP SELLING CRACK FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS TO PAY OFF DADS SPARE RENTAL WORKING SHITE JOBS COZ THEY WERE TOO SMACHED TO STUDY AND JUST GOT JOBS THROUGH DADS FRIENDS!

LOL, GO THE PRAWNS AND CRAYFISH AND VOTING LIBERAL AND SMOKING CRACK AND DADDYKINS SPIEL THAT HE USED TO LAUGH AT HOW MANY PEOPLE HIS SON WOULD TELL IT TO!!!

SOMEBODY STOP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheesy

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: support coalition = reject economics
Reply #14 - Sep 10^th, 2011 at 4:37am

The_Barnacle wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 8^th, 2011 at 8:13pm:

This doesn't really matter freediver until you can answer my question about

"In context of total carbon emissions from all sources who much do humans contribute (in percentage terms please)"

By continuing to ask this question and ignoring the answers that are given you are showing your complete ignorance of the science behind the carbon cycle and global warming.

But it never has been about the science has it? It's just about your political agenda

MAQQAS AIM IN LIFE IS TO CHEW UP ALL THE INTERNETS ADDRESS SPACE....................... I'M BEING SERIOUS HERE! Grin

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged