Joseph Stiglitz: Australia should not follow the American path to inequality

I do not think persuasion is better thn penalties to make people do the right ting.
Is violating the rights of others, the right thing?
Labor Government introduced free universities.
I ask again... If you were alone on a deserted island, who would you demand pay for such things?
The poor will have to go to inferior universities.
If you're from Aus, then English is your first language.... You've graduated from a "free" university with a degree... I'm guessing 1st through 12th are all "free" as well in Aus.... Whoever paid for your "free" education, should get their money back.
 
Werbung:
Is violating the rights of others, the right thing?

I ask again... If you were alone on a deserted island, who would you demand pay for such things?

If you're from Aus, then English is your first language.... You've graduated from a "free" university with a degree... I'm guessing 1st through 12th are all "free" as well in Aus.... Whoever paid for your "free" education, should get their money back.
Im from here but still type horribly. Has more to do with doing this on a smart phone and not having the best vision. Go to LA and see how many asians speek englishor hispanics for that matter. Bad as i am i have to cut people mire slack i guess.
 
GenSeneca. I do not know if you are a general but I am a economist. We are not alone on a desert island. The government has to power to own all the assets of a country.
 
I am a economist.
Does having a specific title elevate the Individual Rights of that person, making his Rights superior to the Individual Rights of others?
We are not alone on a desert island.
But you ARE an Individual.... Without individuals, government is just an empty, lifeless mass of inanimate matter, devoid of any inalienable rights, completely incapable of exercising any kind of right or power over the living. Individuals are necessary for government to have any power at all, and those individuals are equally endowed at their creation with the exact same rights as every other individual.
The government has to power to own all the assets of a country.
What Right do you have, as an individual, that permits you to initiate force against others, in order to "own all the assets of a country"?
If you agree that you, as an individual, do not have such a right... then by what rationale do you believe yourself capable of granting a lifeless mass of inanimate matter the power to exercise a Right that no individual posses?
 
Government elected by the individuals have the power to take over assets. They had done so in every war. Socialist government nationalise private assets. Even Keynes said it is better to spend now in a recession and to worry about repaying the debt later
 
Government elected by the individuals have the power to take over assets. They had done so in every war. Socialist government nationalise private assets. Even Keynes said it is better to spend now in a recession and to worry about repaying the debt later

They only have the power to take over assets, if we allow it ... see 2nd Amendment.
 
Government elected by the individuals have the power to take over assets.
You don't seem to grasp the idea that government is made up of individuals with rights equal to your own. If you believe a voting majority of the individuals who control government have the right to confiscate everything you own...

Dogtowner and I just crashed the S.S. Minnow onto the shore of your deserted island...

We immediately establish our very own 3 man government. The next day... Dog and I agree in a 2-1 vote to confiscate everything you own. Everything you've built and created, all the resources you rely on to live, now belong exclusively to Dog and Sen, to do with as we please.

On our 3 man island, would you still believe a voting majority has the right to confiscate your assets?
Even Keynes said it is better to spend now in a recession and to worry about repaying the debt later
That's nice... If he said it was a good idea to jump as high as you can into the air, off a tall bridge, and worry about landing later, would you think that is a good idea too? Same principle in both examples. There is no cheating the laws of nature, reality will always win.
 
While aus is correct that wars do produce a change if ownership thats well diffetent that govt seizing assets if its current (not new) citizens.
Its not hard to demonstrate govt seizing addeys of citizens, imminent dpmain springs to mind, but you deemed to making a much more blanket assertion. At least thats how it read to me.
 
This is about Australia. Here we have elected a Labor party that said it would nationalise assets..
Sometimes as in 1949 we voted against this. Other times as in 1942 we voted for this due to the war.
We also voted Labor to spend to avoid a recession in 2010 following Keynes. We had no recession like the rest of the develop world..
 
This is about Australia. Here we have elected a Labor party that said it would nationalise assets..
Sometimes as in 1949 we voted against this. Other times as in 1942 we voted for this due to the war.
We also voted Labor to spend to avoid a recession in 2010 following Keynes. We had no recession like the rest of the develop world..
In 2014 you will ..... better catch up ......
 
This is about Australia.
You, are an individual. Every Aussie citizen, is an individual.
Here we have elected a Labor party that said it would nationalise assets..
Nationalize assets, for the greater good of the majority... Which, you wouldn't think is so great, or good, when it's a 2-1 vote.
Sometimes as in 1949 we voted against this. Other times as in 1942 we voted for this due to the war.
Serious question Aus22... Do any of the Aus parties, who oppose the LP, talk about the LP as violating the rights of citizens? I really hope there is at least one... No matter how small.
We also voted Labor to spend to avoid a recession in 2010 following Keynes. We had no recession like the rest of the develop world..
If you can deficit spend to avoid a recession, why not continually increase the amount of deficit spending necessary to create, and grow, an endless boom?
 
AUSSIE CARBON TAX REPEAL GIVES PAUSE TO OTHER COUNTRIES

Australia’s repeal of its controversial carbon tax last week has gotten other countries thinking about ditching their own carbon dioxide emissions reduction schemes.

On the heels of the Aussie carbon tax defeat, South Korea’s finance minister, Choi Kyung-hwan, called his country’s planned cap-and-trade system “flawed in many ways,” and hinted that he would pressure the government to delay the plan until 2015.

Businesses say the cap-and-trade system could cost them up to $28.9 billion in three years unless the program is delayed until 2020.

Reuters reports that South Korea’s emissions trading program has already been delayed twice since 2013. The system would have capped emissions from 400 top emitters in the country, potentially making it the world’s second-largest cap-and-trade system.

But while some in the government remain optimistic about the system, Reuters notes that “some analysts have warned that the market’s emissions cap will be too low and have forecast that the South Korean carbon price could rocket towards $98, which is the penalty firms have to pay per tonne if they don’t meet their targets.”

Australia’s conservative government was finally able to pass legislation aimed at repealing the country’s two-year old carbon tax last week. It was hailed as a victory by carbon tax opponents, citing the huge cost it imposed on families and the economy.

U.S. politicians took notice of the repeal as well. Republican lawmakers said the Australian experience should serve as a warning to the Obama administration, which has recently introduce regulations aimed at lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

“It is painfully obvious what a disastrous effect carbon constraining policies can have, and our European allies are the prime example,” said Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter in a statement. “Australia’s carbon tax was certain to provide all pain and no gain for their economy.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently issued regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, which would accelerate the early shutdown of coal-fired power plants.

“As EPA and the Obama administration attempt to force a thinly-veiled carbon tax on the American people, they could really learn something here – that the increased unemployment and skyrocketing electricity prices don’t outweigh the insignificant reduction in carbon emissions,” Vitter warned.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top