The United States(!) of A
BB- all your posts show you are very confused . Apologies for adding more .
You can call the current government neoliberal but everyone else calls them conservative .
"The policies of the current government are based on neoliberalism"
"You can call the current government neoliberal"
Are you misrepresenting people, Hutchy?
The left under Julia Gillard had some world leading ideas. Ideas and policy that was so good other countries have used the framework to produce there own policies only to have the RWNJ’s such as Abbot scuttle them to return to the status quo. ( that being what BB mentioned above.) And the mess we are currently in.
“ Stupid Windmills. “ Hutchy/Abbot I’m sure it was one ‘em
Stu - I am trying to reduce my chatter today ( Indo's suggestion ) but you keep asking me questions .
Unlike you Stu definitely not deliberately trying to misrepresent anyone or anything .
If neoliberalism means something different to neoliberal then I apologise .
Soggy - I didn't realise that Abbott scuttled all Wind farms . I will have to tell Indo that the site he posts quoting all the energy coming from them is BS . Thanks for the heads up !
blindboy wrote:" the right don't need good ideas"
Well that's a stroke of luck seeing no-one has yet been able to demonstrate that they have ever had one. You also seem to be confusing right wing politics with conservatism when right-wing governments are anything but. They interfere in markets (fossil fuel subsidies) change financial regulations and tax regimes (negative gearing, franking credits). They also have massively increased security legislation reducing our legal rights and virtually destroyed our right to privacy. Conservative, in a pig's arse!
Its been demonstrated you just choose to ignore all the points.
But once again:
All developed countries are based on free markets, private ownership, and capitalism these are all conservative/ right wing ideals, just because a country has some regulation or social type safety nets doesn't sudenly make it a left wing system, these things play a minor part.
Countries based on these ideals have found to be the most succesful system and only need mild tinkering and don't need to come up with crazy new ideas.
True left wing systems like communism and socialism fail time after time...
BTW. even countries in north europe with more socialst type policy's are still countries with free markets, capitalism, private ownership.
@sypkan said " the right don't need good ideas, they are 'conserving' the status quo by definition ..."
and @hutchy said " ....I mistakenly forgot to mention Trumps GREATEST achievement . He kept Hillary and Bill out of the White House ..."
That's it in a nutshell. The right's only roles in government are to (1) be in government (2) maintaining the status quo (of inequity and largesse to its base and backers) and (3) otherwise do nothing preemptively (always react after the problem emerges - bush fires and covid e.g.)
In the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison era name the policies these governments took to the election that weren't either removing Labor polices and/or scare campaigns against what Labor might do.
The right always need an enemy, someone or something that threatens its base's/backer's comfort. It has no "nation building"policies as it sees no need as the inequity status quo has been already established.
And its base and backers play the game and forgive the right for all its excesses, corruption and waste, go figure, and this is why people like Trump and Morrison survive and that is why people like @syphon and @blowin unfairly criticise Labor as "lite", how in the fuck can Labor counter all that and that's before you factor in Murdoch and Palmer.
They are conservatives and free marketeers and right wing capitalists until they can get their hands on public money. Then they don't mind socialism. Jobkeeper anyone? Meanwhile Gina is giving speeches to scoolkids that climate change is bullshit. I would have more time for Australian conservatives except the LNP are basically a criminal cartel with some very stupid and dangerous people in positions of power. Voting conservative in Australia is aiding and abetting criminals.
Come at me.
I am trying to limit my chatter so will start with one Abbott policy that got him elected " Stop the Boats ".
Labor said it couldn't be done .
The latest policy fart from the Nationals is a $250 billion loan facility for coal mining companies. Free market socialism at it's finest
Sure, Abbott "stopped the boats" then proceeded to cut fair and equitable funding to schools, funding to hospitals and then the most mind boggling of all, cuts to CSIRO and research institutions.
And yeah, they said those cuts couldn't/ shouldn't be made but he did. What a champ
Hutchy 19 wrote:I am trying to limit my chatter so will start with one Abbott policy that got him elected " Stop the Boats ".
Labor said it couldn't be done .
Yes they were stopped and he also scuttled the offshore processing idea for blatant political reasons that would have actually established that imaginary queue the refugees were falsely claimed to be jumping....
Ah, but back to the basics and the politics of exclusion and the need to scare voters of an external threat they and their way of life needs to be protected from - right wing politics 101.
Trumps wall
Smiley - Trumps wall would have come in handy now as I am sure you would agree . Just like the boats being stopped .
A porous border disaster that none of the Democrat leadership have any clue about what to do . They are not even willing to go have a look to see what is going on .
All putting their heads in the sand and only scream when boarder protection officers try and do a tough job . They then incorrectly say they are wiping the illegal refugees . Deflecting they are good at . They are not even willing to take their head out when opinion polls show that most of the people in the US are terribly worried about it as they should be . The people of the US don't need right wing politicians to scare them of this external threat as they can work it out for themselves .
Not worth telling Biden as he did not even know he pissed off the French recently and needed to be told by Kerry his climate ambassador .
"The latest policy fart from the Nationals is a $250 billion loan facility for coal mining companies."
Five million bucks for every miner in Australia. Not bad.
Wrong thread Stu .
It maybe my imagination but you seem to be following me around but this thread is the US .
Feel free to give the ok to stop porous borders though .
Haven't found any good banks in the Pilbara yet .
Look three posts up, Hutchy.
It's not all about you and your tired attempts at humour.
Sorry Stu I missed that one . It does follow my response to a question on Abbott .
Here ya go Hutchy..Time out...enjoy some middy Jbay / Tullatub reopens on 25th
Thanks very much udo .
When in form I surf the same way but my board is a bit longer but I would also be a bit bigger . Looks a great surf spot and would need shark eyes on my board .
I couldn't do much paddling or popping up in the gear he was wearing at the moment . Intimidating thinking how to try and get ready for summer .
GuySmiley wrote:Ah, but back to the basics and the politics of exclusion and the need to scare voters of an external threat they and their way of life needs to be protected
Trumps wall
Who knew The Donald and Obama has so much in common? And who said American politics was riven by division. Smells like bipartisanship to me. Wonder why The Donald didn't give his two predecessors credit for their fine work?
"The George W. Bush and Obama administrations increased total fencing to 654 miles, about half of it tall steel barriers designed to prevent pedestrian crossings and half of it shorter barricades to rebuff vehicles."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-22/trump-border-wall-bui...
Have never suggested both sides of politics don't favour strong borders Roker but Trump weaponised the issue as Im sure you also remember by calling people crossing the border rapists, criminals, drug addicts etc etc just like we in AU had "children overboard" and the thinly veiled implications of terrorists seeking entry lies.
My point was the right always needs a boogeyman to scare the electorate
Yes quite right GS. The irony is that if Trump hadn't used the issue like he did he probably would've got a big chunk of it built. But as you suggest that was irrelevant to him, he'd found a divisive issue to ignite his base. I think Trump doesn't get enough credit, if that's the word, for his talent as a demagogue.
If Obama decided something unpleasant had to be done he just quietly did it.
He's a strange case, a centrist and a pragmatist who by nature should have been acceptable to both sides and a unifying figure. Yet he was lionised by the progressive left for what he represented symbolically and successfully demonised by Fox News as a communist (absurd) when they realised this approach gave them an entertainment and ratings hit.
I think if Trump wanted to really take demagoguery to new levels he should have expanded Obamacare to universal health care and claimed and pronounced it as his own - because it would have primarily benefited his non college educated MAGA base. And then dared anyone with vested interests, GOP congressional members and Fox News media types to contradict him. They wouldn't have dared.
I think he'd still be president.
When talking how far to the right the republicans have gone one should never forget how they did everything in their power to block anything Obama wanted to do over his two terms. It was the hard right tea party influenced republicans that did not recognise a democratically elected president nor his mandate and when it came time to hand control back to the democrats well they didn’t recognise the vote / result. Fascism in the land of the free!
GuySmiley wrote:Have never suggested both sides of politics don't favour strong borders Roker but Trump weaponised the issue as Im sure you also remember by calling people crossing the border rapists, criminals, drug addicts etc etc just like we in AU had "children overboard" and the thinly veiled implications of terrorists seeking entry lies.
My point was the right always needs a boogeyman to scare the electorate
And the left dont?
I think both sides do, since 9/11 it was generally Islamic based terrorism but now it's seems to be more a far right boogie man.
Covid has also kind of been overblown into a boogie man by both sides too, in Victoria Dan even used emotive language like "Wicked enemy"
Smiley you said - " did not recognise a democratically elected president nor his mandate " . I agree but both sides did and do this . Same in Oz .
At least the Republicans didn't try and impeach Obama twice every 4 years ,
They also have so much more on Biden than Trump and are not trying to impeach him either . Russian collusion has been proved false and fabricated by the Clinton and the FBI doing their dirty work . Saying to another countries leader that billions of aid comes with strings attached is normal and laughable as an impeachable event . Who wouldn't say this behind closed doors . It took a snitch to open the door .
I agree that Trump acted like a demigod but thought him a MUCH better option than Hillary . I also think he did a much better job than I thought he would do .
I also think he did more good things for the US in his 4 years than Obama did in either of his 4 years . And with MUCH greater opposition . The world was anti Trump .
Trump improved Obama Care . What has Biden or the Democrats said or tried to reverse of those amendments ? Not one !
@plonkers, back to the kiddies pool
Hutchy 19 wrote:I also think he did a much better job than I thought he would do .
Let's be honest when he was elected it was kind of scary, most of us thought he would start world war 3 or something, but it was actually the opposite, first president not to start a new war or conflict for about 50 years.
His handing of Covid wasn't good, if it wasn't for Covid, its highly likely he would have been re-elected.
Totally agree Indo .
I was also scared of what he might do . Much more scared of Hillary though .
He did have more people vote for him in the last election than in the first . I think many others thought he did a better job than they expected as well . When you consider what he was up against ( eg media , the swamp , FBI , CIA ) and that he did a bad job with covid it is not surprising that many voters in the US now regret voting in Biden .
It seems he or his son have a good chance of getting in next time . It will probably be the same as his first win . No credible alternative . Not a good state of affairs .
indo-dreaming wrote:All developed countries are based on free markets, private ownership, and capitalism these are all conservative/ right wing ideals, just because a country has some regulation or social type safety nets doesn't sudenly make it a left wing system, these things play a minor part.
Countries based on these ideals have found to be the most succesful system and only need mild tinkering and don't need to come up with crazy new ideas.
True left wing systems like communism and socialism fail time after time...
BTW. even countries in north europe with more socialst type policy's are still countries with free markets, capitalism, private ownership.
Geez Indo, really disappointed this is your level of understanding and depth of thinking on this topic. Really thought you had a more nuanced position on this front.
JQ wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:All developed countries are based on free markets, private ownership, and capitalism these are all conservative/ right wing ideals, just because a country has some regulation or social type safety nets doesn't sudenly make it a left wing system, these things play a minor part.
Countries based on these ideals have found to be the most succesful system and only need mild tinkering and don't need to come up with crazy new ideas.
True left wing systems like communism and socialism fail time after time...
BTW. even countries in north europe with more socialst type policy's are still countries with free markets, capitalism, private ownership.
Geez Indo, really disappointed this is your level of understanding and depth of thinking on this topic. Really thought you had a more nuanced position on this front.
The conversation was about what the right has brought to the table, and that is basically the whole system we live under.
The fact you feel the need to be patronising, shows me you cant argue against this.
Meanwhile others have said silly things like:
"They are conservatives and free marketeers and right wing capitalists until they can get their hands on public money. Then they don't mind socialism. Jobkeeper anyone? "
Thinking they have some gotcha moment.
FFS again the system is 99% a conservative system base of capitalism, free markets and private ownership, having some regulation, subsidies or social wealth-fare safety nets, doesn't suddenly change that or make them a socialist government.
Im glad we have a government like the current one that isn't over the top ideological based and understand there is times to give out handouts/help outs, i dont think most people or even most conservatives have an issue with this, the issue is more when these type of policy are used when not needed and you create other issues like social wealth fare dependence and other social related issues that stem from this.
I mean i kind of hate to admit this but really Labor are economically more right than left, I mean it was actually Labor who started privatisation in Australia during the Hawke-Keating era (Commonwealth bank, Qantas & and deregulation.
Even currently with state governments we have weird unexpected policy like in Victoria (labor) we have a milage tax on EV's, then in NSW (LNP) they have a abolishment of stamp duty on EV's to encourage uptake and then said they wont bring in a user type tax for at least 6 years to allow uptake first. (complete opposite policy of what you would expect)
It's really more the social type issues Labor try to lean left on, and with the left going down crazy woke avenues, Labor tying to keep people happy around these issues isn't working, not to mention forgetting their traditional blue collar worker base.
I know Labor in the UK aren't exactly the same thing, but i was listening to a podcast yesterday and its almost carbon copy Labor in the Uk apparently havent been in power for over 11 years and have exactly the same issues, losing their traditional blue collar worker base, people getting put off by wokeness.
I think the next election will be interesting if Labor lose again it could be a very long time before they get in government, as it is they have only been in power less than 6 years out of about the last 25 that could blow out much to a much worse ratio, and forming a collation with the Greens won't help, that would only send more people to vote LNP and give Labor the same headaches that LNP have with the Nationals, that is really the aspect of the LNP that is problematic.
Indo - imo it is not worth trying to be sensible with JQ . If he is unable to see the truth in this post he just is just not worth your time .
All developed countries are based on free markets, private ownership, and capitalism these are all conservative/ right wing ideals, just because a country has some regulation or social type safety nets doesn't sudenly make it a left wing system, these things play a minor part.
Countries based on these ideals have found to be the most successful system and only need mild tinkering and don't need to come up with crazy new ideas.
True left wing systems like communism and socialism fail time after time...
BTW. even countries in north europe with more socialst type policy's are still countries with free markets, capitalism, private ownership.
That is some fine work Indo, couldn't have said it better myself. BTW Not your finest response, JQ. Suggest you heed the quote by AL - 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt'.
@ID,
Capitalism existed long before the left/right dichotomy, so though it may sound like semantics it can't be said to be either. Capitalism, as we understand it now, exists on a spectrum that borrows from both sides of politics.
The Australia that you miss...you've said as much on here...was the product of left wing politics in the wake of WW2. It was still a capitalist system.
Now however, almost all developed countries (northern Europe aside) abide by a set of neoliberal principles that favour the right, and that once put in motion can't be undone without either great persuasion or great pain.
Hence, you see rising inequality and instability in these countries, a process that will, without persuasive intervention, end in social breakdown. The wealthy don't care about this, because as always they'll be insulated from the fallout. Thatcher's "there's no such thing as society" sounded the warning bell for what the lower classes can expect when things inevitably turn sour.
stu - please refer AL quote above.
You feeling threatened again, D?
First your precious footy and now this.
Not at all stu baby. My team won the GF for the first time in 57 years and Indo put all other dissenters on this thread to bed so I'm on top of the world! PS Thanks for showing your concern.
That's great that you derive self-worth through your football team.
One win in 57 years, you say?
Explains a lot.
stu - please refer AL quote above.
Yes, I read it. Howsabout we move the conversation forward a bit? Here are two more quotes for you:
"I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.”
― Abraham Lincoln
"I tried but he's still a cock."
― Stu Nettle
stunet wrote:@ID,
Capitalism existed long before the left/right dichotomy, so though it may sound like semantics it can't be said to be either. Capitalism, as we understand it now, exists on a spectrum that borrows from both sides of politics.
The Australia that you miss...you've said as much on here...was the product of left wing politics in the wake of WW2. It was still a capitalist system.
Now however, almost all developed countries (northern Europe aside) abide by a set of neoliberal principles that favour the right, and that once put in motion can't be undone without either great persuasion or great pain.
Hence, you see rising inequality and instability in these countries, a process that will, without persuasive intervention, end in social breakdown. The wealthy don't care about this, because as always they'll be insulated from the fallout. Thatcher's "there's no such thing as society" sounded the warning bell for what the lower classes can expect when things inevitably turn sour.
100% capitalism existed before left and right because capitalism has evolved from a natural system that's what conservative ideals are really about keeping things as natural as possible and ideally as less complicated as possible, small government etc, but that doesn't mean right leaning governments are free from tinkering with things when needed that's what governments are for to provide a little extra organisation and structure to society.
Left wing ideals are based on things that are not natural like communism and socialism interfering in peoples lives and business and big government interference.
The Australia i miss, is more to do with population growth, i get the attitude people like Blowin have towards this issue on one hand id love it if where i live was still a tiny coastal community, but on the flipside if it was instead of traveling max 15 minutes for work, id probably be traveling 1.5 hrs for work, and so many other aspects that we often ignore just like services etc that never existed but now do, for instance as a kid i had over an hours worth of travel to high school, when my daughter goes it will now only be 15 min travel a day, we are all human too and often blinded by nostalgia, the past almost always seems better than the now.
Personally i think there will always be rising inequality because the way i see things, its like a race the longer the race the bigger the gap between the competitors gets, rising inequality is also a product of success and success is never equal.
The right are about equal opportunity, the left are about equal outcome, one is possible the other is a pipe dream.
You have such an unusual view of left and right politics that it's hard to formulate a starting point.
- Capitalism may be a "natural system" but it's not the only one. Through history, humans have organised themselves in myriad ways, and will continue to do so long after capitalism disappears in the rear view mirror.
- Conservative politics don't mean "keeping things as simple as possible". I've no idea where you plucked that idea from, it fits no definition. It means keeping the status quo, even if that means retaining a thoroughly complex system.
- "Left wing politics is based on unnatural things like socialism". It could be argued that socialism is the most succesful of all the political systems as it was co-operation that allowed humans to become the supermonkey that we are. In that sense, neoliberalism is the antithesis of natural order; the slow-burning catalyst for the war against all. It's a distinctly anti-human system, and has evolved out of no natural order.
- The analogy about the race. WTF? No-one has ever won a race from behind..? Just.....weird.
- Your last line sounds like a grab from Paul Murray and shows zero comprehension about right wing political history.
Stu - I am sorry I have to comment on this .
Someone ( like me ) is happy that their football team won a GF . You had to write this -
"That's great that you derive self-worth through your football team."
Supermonkey is a great name for a band.
Stu - you write "- Capitalism may be a "natural system" but it's not the only one. Through history, humans have organised themselves in myriad ways, and will continue to do so long after capitalism disappears in the rear view mirror."
As Indo points out capitalism does mirror human nature . That is why the hunter gather system also mirrors capitalism .
Two that have been tried and don't work are Feudalism and Communism .
Please let me know how " humans have ( CAN or WILL ) organised themselves in myriad ways ( that are based on human nature ) will continue to do so long after capitalism disappears in the rear view mirror."
Do your own history Hutchy. We could all do with a break from your inanity.
No worries Stu .
I have tried to think of the myriad of ways you mentioned , am a bit of a history buff and can't think of one other way that would be better than Capitalism .
Maybe after a break you can respond as I am always keen to look at any ways that may be better .
The polymath rolls on, having finally sorted out the arse/elbow conundrum he now finds himself looking for a plumb bob to get on top of this up/down puzzle.
@ Stu "Now however, almost all developed countries (northern Europe aside) abide by a set of neoliberal principles that favour the right, and that once put in motion can't be undone without either great persuasion or great pain.
Hence, you see rising inequality and instability in these countries, a process that will, without persuasive intervention, end in social breakdown"
The pitchforks come - as history teaches us.
Aaah Hutchy what can we do with you when you post nonsense like this.
"Saying to another countries leader that billions of aid comes with strings attached is normal and laughable as an impeachable event "
A superficially true statement but one that usually applies to strings like "spend it wisely"., " build hospitals and schools" or some such
In Trump's cse of course the string was "give me the dirt my opponent's son..."
Now I know you are probably still trying to work out that up/down thing (hint; the metal bit goes down) so you might have difficulty distinguishing between aid being conditional on the way it is to be used and aid being conditional on providing political assistance to an individual, but give it a go. It's a pretty important distinction in politics and helps prevent democracies (particularly ones that have developed a bit of a wobble like Trump's America) degenerating into kleptocracies. (Yep you might have to look that one up).
Off topic but does anyone know what thread that was where someone was talking about USA and i commented the gun laws there are rediculous but their cannabis laws are good? been trying to find it for an hour.
Paging Udo.
Hutchy 19 wrote:No worries Stu .
I have tried to think of the myriad of ways you mentioned , am a bit of a history buff and can't think of one other way that would be better than Capitalism .
Maybe after a break you can respond as I am always keen to look at any ways that may be better .
Because there isn't one, because any other system takes freedom away from people, capitalism is really just the freedom to trade, and the right for people to own and build capitol.
Any alternative takes away that right and puts way too much power in the hands of an authority be it government/state/royal party whatever.
Septic Tanks are going to Septic Tank