[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

If you want to talk about the states finances you may want to consider the excessive focus of welfare on the middle and upper classes who don't need it.

As you know, i did state my position on this already. Middle class welfare doesnt facilitate economy building, thus its not for the government to provide.

Apart from the social and moral aspects of raising living standards generally, there are many arguments that are more convincing than 'the rich need tax cuts as incentives whilst the poor need the grinding burden of poverty', which is basically what you are arguing.

Basically, i'm not arguing this at all. In fact, i said nothing of the sort - whilst i mentioned that some "rich" people in the top tax brackets are actually small businesses (who undertake and face significant risk), never did i argue that the rich should be taxed less, nor the poor taxed more. Mainly because it doesnt make sense, thus fails the common sense rule that i mentioned at the start of my posting. Transfer payments from the richest people in society to the poorest makes sense as poorest people tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume, which in a modern capitalistic society - where consumption is such a huge requirement for economic growth - it makes at least economic sense to do this to some extent. Further, there are social and societal concerns with assisting the most needy in a community, such as the notion of a government's societal contract. At no time did i say anything contrary to this. Strawmen should be left in the fields.

I'm generally a big fan of public investment in infrastructure, ie governments becoming facilitators of the general economy, rather than managers, drivers or major sources of growth/activity. Issues such as Australia's telecommunications network, for example, which was bundled up with the state-run Telstra and privatised - now the infrastructure needs upgrading, and the (more or less) private business Telstra doesnt want to have to foot the bill to upgrade tens of billions of dollars worth of national broadband and other infrastructure only for the Commonwealth to regulate that the Telstra's competition must be free to use that network at the same competitive wholesale price. If the government still owned the infrastructure and rented it out to all of the telecommunications providers without fear or favour, then Australia would actually have a decent telecom system. Alas, it doesnt, even in major cities like Sydney and Melbourne (some ~4000km away from me, heh). Thus, it would have been common sense for the government to retain ownership of the infrastructure, upgrade it as demand dictated, and charge for the privilege. But it could also draw upon consolidated revenue to pay for the upgrade (which is costly) and still have the power to regulate the market to ensure decent competition. This kind of activity in the economy seems to make sense - there is no inefficient state monopoly, but its not fully free market (and thus no services to very low population density bush residents who still need these services).

This is the kind of thing i was advocating - not trying to root the poor. However, my original point was that such an undertaking would have indirect benefits to all members of society; poorer people will have greater access to good telecommunications than they otherwise would or presently do. Thus, an (indirect) benefit. Does that make sense now?

This is true, but it does not equate that all work causes you to enter into a state of Buddist enlightenment. Human beings need some work, it is part of who we are. It just so happens that the most labourous work is the work with the least financial rewards.

I never claimed bhuddist enlightenment is derived from any work. The work with the greatest financial rewards tends to be those where the demand greatly outstrips supply (funny that, a core maxim of economics) - because essentially anyone can do menial labour, and plenty of people are willing and able to do it, the pay for such labour is less than medicine which required special skills held by a select few who can then command their prices. This is really quite obvious, even to you. Menial labour would pay alot more if fewer people were willing or able to do it. This is achieved by a general shift in the economy towards greater skills and higher general wages. But wages have to be linked to productivity, else there will be inflation 80's style which did nothing but cause economic (and associated social) hardship for more people than otherwise.

So these are the 'dole bluggers' you were complaining of earlier?

No. Dole bludging (or someone who is a dole bludger) is a mindset whereby someone is capable of working, but is not willing to do so. Usually because they cant be arsed and dont give a damn because the government pays them for being unemployed. The commonwealth has tried to cut down on this excessive waste by introducing "work for the dole" schemes (to various levels of success), but obviously has adverse impacts to other social groups (such as single mothers). Generally, in australia, a dole bludger is being un-australian by not doing their bit and being slack. And surfing. The problem is, in official statistics, they are considered unemployed.

But no-where did i say that all unemployed people were dole bludgers - my point was that those who were/are need to pull their socks up and get a bloody job, because right now is the best time in australian history since the Army was recruiting in WW2.

But this doesn't get done due to electoral issues. These are the people who vote, if you don't appease them then they will vote for the other party offering what they want. This is part of the reason for the lack of divergence between mainstream parties.

Whinging about the similarities between political parties aside, middle class welfare will continue to the point where its no longer electorably successful and/or a government has such a majority it can afford to loose those votes to attain others. Essentially, avoidance of a recession is a good tool to use, and Australia's present "runaway inflation" (the Reserve Bank just raised the cash rate to 7%) means that the commonwealth and the states will need to curb unnecessary spending. It remains to be seen whether the new government has the balls to deem middle class welfare as unnecessary, but i know where i'd place my bet .

Your definition of those who 'need' welfare seems to be rather narrow,

Frankly, common sense seems like a fairly good starting point.

and it has been argued that the best way to provide for the poorest is to provide universal coverage, to ensure the compliance of the middle classes.

I'm all for "universal coverage" type public insurance systems, like Medicare and others. Mainly because they make sense - it avoids the free rider problem, it alleviates adverse selection, and it fulfils any notions about "social contracts" with people and their governments. I never said anything against it.

At the end of the day, even if the working class did start voting in huge numbers their interests would still be in conflict with the capitalist system as a whole. When it comes to the crunch, it is the interests of the poor which will bew neglected.

In australia, the "working class" already vote in huge numbers, given that voting is compulsory. Did it fix the problem? not really. Most vote Labor like their mothers and fathers did, and as such their votes are assumed to be Labor held and thus no real change happens. I dont think their interests are against the capitalist system however, given that communism results in everyone being working class and that anarchism results in chaos and/or is improbable that they would gain (cf the richer people loosing - but even that's not certain). Perhaps if all the working classes found enlightenment via bhudda? Wasnt that the whole purpose of religions anyway? to suppress the peasantry?

As a case in point, the emphasis on curbing inflation rather than unemployment. There are good reasons to believe that reducing unemployment through tax rises in a recession is better than curbing inflation through raising interest rates, but these are politically unsound methods so what is believed is what is convenient to believe, even though it doesn't work.

I'm not sure about that. History clearly demonstrates that government's economic policy should follow whatever works at the time. This is common sense. Post great depressions, Keynesianism philosophy of high government spending resulting in success, thus it should be pursued. In the mid 70's with the oil crisis, when Keynesianism lead to nothing but stagflation, monetarism (which was essentially supply side economics, cf demand side economics for keynes) worked, so that should be pursued. Since then, keeping a check on both the demand and supply side (increase spending during recession, easing monetary policy simultaneously) has staved off recession for quite a while. Australia's last recession was in 1991 with "the recession we had to have" after massive microeconomic-reform, with major re-structuring of the economy.

What you seem to be alluding to are the IMF's policys around the time of the 1997 Asian Crash. Clearly, as i try and promote common sense, you definitely will not find me a friend of the IMF. If you're interested, have a read of Stiglitz's A new paradigm in financial economics (iirc) when he blasted the IMF to hell and gone. The IMF did it again in Argentina, but they are reforming (marginally) since. Essentially, do what Dr Mahatir did in Malaysia at the time (listen to what the IMF says, do the opposite, win), and you'll be fine .

That's funny because in the UK we have 24 separate social classes.

Well done. Refer to my earlier comments about the UK being shit.
Australia is essentially classless with high social mobility. If you do belong to a "class", its pretty broad and generally defined as what occupation you presently hold - eg, Doctors being higher than Carpenters, being higher than menial labour being higher than unemployed.

I'm not just talking about going to university, I'm talking about going to the elite universities, Oxford and Cambridge, the ones where most pupils come from pubic schools and makes the social connections required to raise to the highest levels of politics, for example.

Well, i was. Generally, because Australia doesnt have elite universities as britain does - generally all the universities are divided into three broad tiers. "Sandstone" universities are the oldest and have (apparently) good reputations; generally being founded around the time of that state's colony. The second tier are the Technology universities which were started around the time of the post-war boom, catering to wider applicants during the time of free university education for all. After these are what are known derisively as "Super TAFEs" which may or may not actually be universities at all, followed by Technical Colleges (called TAFE) where trades are tought. However, this stratification doesnt always hold - take Western Australia for example. The University of Western Australia is a sandstone uni and has a very good (at least domestic) reputation. However, it specialises in Medicine and Law and fairly good at Engineering. Curtin University of Technology (where I go to), specialises in Commerce (where i do Economics) and Engineering - UWA and Curtin's Engineering essentially has no difference between them. Murdoch university (more or less technology) is extremely good in Veterinary Medicine, Bio Tech and Chemistry, with secondary in Law (which does not rival UWA). Thus, if you wanted to do veterinary, you'd go to Murdoch even if you had the marks to go to UWA.

Its a bit confusing, but the Australian experience is that the distinction is between going to university and not, rather than going to Cambridge and goinf to university and not. All universities have extensive scholarship programmes, though they are based on marks and not socio-economic background.

You do realise the claim 'inferiority' of poor people is the result of social and economic forces rather them being geneticallt shit, right?

I'm not understanding your point here. I never claimed such a thing at all?!?!

'Rebellion in social acceptable forms' is not thinking critically.

No, but it does represent an in-grained willingness to challenge the prevailing "establishment" (for want of a better term). I acknowledge that there is a distinction between being cynical and thinking about a superior world view, i think that having the former in-grained as a feature of our culture at least makes it more difficult to be oppressed in the Orwellian style that you prefer to make the world out to be.

What is your problem with the arts?

Generally, the colossal waste of money on them, the huge number of students without even a cursory nod to the availability of jobs for arts graduates, general shitness and unspecificity and etc.

Yeah, it couldn't possibly that the points I'm making have any substance. IF they did, how could we all be so happy?

I'm happy.
I did acknowledge that the Weather in Britain might have something to do with your dour attitude.

Yes, everyone has exactly the same oppertunities and exactly the same social situation. If you can make it roughing it through your hardcore private school, then surely all those other people who come from single parent families living on welfare on run down estates, rife with crime, unemployment and a generally bleak future almost guranteed, well they can make it as well. Otherwise they're just lazy and should be made to suffer for it. Maybe more poverty will spur them on to better things. It hasn't worked yet, but maybe next time will be different. Meanwhile you can sit back and relax safe in the knowledge that the only thing you can do is support the increase of suffering by cutting welfare benefits whilst coincidentally improving your own economic situation through a tax cut, because let's face it, you've earned it!

You jest, i realise this. My neighbour is smarter than me and has been since we were children. He went to the local public school whilst i bussed across town (out of my neighbourhood) to my poncy private school. He and his family went on holiday every year (even if it was just down south) whilst we stayed home. He is now doing an apprenticeship (iirc winning the State's Apprentice of the Year) whilst i'm doing my Honours. He is pursuing what he wants to do, and is doing well, whilst i'm doing what i want to do, and is doing ok. In a similar vein, a mate of mine also doing honours is much smarter than me. He's graduated and now has a Commonwealth job. He grew up in the next suburb across (not "rough" as the americans call it, but far from upper class), single parent family with two siblings is beating the pants off me. Essentially, if both of them can get out and succeed, then its proven it can be done even within my relatively small field. True oppression of the classes would be if none of us got where we are now. Just because my family chose to sacrifice all the "fun" things in life (we went on one holiday in 20 years, and etc) to afford to educate me as best as possible, doesnt mean i cant appreciate the hardship of others.

But just taking the piss out of a group of people because they happen to now have wealth, whilst you may not, isnt a useful occupation of your time. What might be better is if you removed you finger from up your bum and bloody well did something about it for yourself.