BF2S Forums Understanding Elections

ZombieVampire! wrote:

But they only ever shift to extremes.  Either you can vote right, or left.  You can't go moderate, or a different sort of right or left.

Really? Beause it looks like the GOP candidate for our highest office is rather central by comparison to GWB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan … Reform_Act
http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center … ummary.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Ame … ration_Act
You need to look at what they have actually done. Hillary is hardly far left also. Maybe we just have a different definition of extremes.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I'll have to read through that stuff properly later, but my initial comment is: yes, we do.  By my standards, all your politicians are right, by your standards all mine are far left.

Well relative to our politicians he is actually more center than most of the GOP.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I'll have to read through that stuff properly later, but my initial comment is: yes, we do.  By my standards, all your politicians are right, by your standards all mine are far left.

Australia is considerably more corporate than America though.  You may have better social programs and mostly more liberal social policies, but a lot of your markets are rather restricted by corporate interests.

Take for example, banking: http://www.usq.edu.au/cafi/confpapers/E … 0Meier.PDF

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I'll have to read through that stuff properly later, but my initial comment is: yes, we do.  By my standards, all your politicians are right, by your standards all mine are far left.

Australia is considerably more corporate than America though.  You may have better social programs and mostly more liberal social policies, but a lot of your markets are rather restricted by corporate interests.

Take for example, banking: http://www.usq.edu.au/cafi/confpapers/E … 0Meier.PDF

Can you please explain what that article is on about (or what you wanted to 'show' by it). I couldn't be bothered reading it as I saw nothing of any meaning nor relevance and the sources (from what I saw) were 15-60 years old which makes them pretty useless today.

No need to get defensive.

The central idea behind this paper is that the Australian government blocked access of foreign banks to Australia's banking market until 1985 because of its corporatist relationship with the domestic banks.

Even though banking reforms started in 1985, the author goes on to say this:

"Did this corporatist arrangement disintegrate after the banks ceased to be the major transmission belt for monetary policy? Notwithstanding the introduction of market based, or indirect monetary policy instruments in conjunction with the lifting of direct controls, the banks continued to perform functions for the state such as passing on changes in monetary policy to consumers, assisting the government in 'ensuring an efficient, stable and broadbasedpayments system' (The Martin Inquiry 1991: 443), monitoring of large cash transactions and collection of state taxes levied on financial transactions. Until the implementation of the Wallis Inquiry's recommendations in 1998, the banks were granted several important privileges: they (and no other financial institution) had access to the Reserve Bank's lender of last resort facility; and exclusive authority to issue chequing accounts through exchange settlements with the Reserve Bank."

The general argument is that Australia's long legacy of corporatism with their domestic banks hurt the interests of individuals, but it benefitted these banks tremendously.  Because of how relatively recent these reforms have been put into place, there are still disadvantages for foreign banks when competing with domestic ones.

There are other industries in Australia that seem to have this corporatist trend, due to the government's favoritism for certain domestic corporations.

Don't get me wrong -- America has plenty of corporatist issues of its own, but I just felt like showing that Australia isn't as "liberal" as Zombie seems to want to imply.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-06-01 12:48:50)

ZombieVampire! wrote:

The fact that we have significant corporate interests has nothing to do with where we are on the political spectrum.  The fact is Australia is considerable further to the left than the US.

I want to know how far left you are by comparison. Do you have same sex marriages? Did you send troops to Iraq? Do you have socialized healthcare or is it something similar to our Medicare? I'm looking for the huge difference.. help me out please.

1) Less resistance maybe yet same results

2) Why was there a need to strengthen relations with the US? I'm looking for an answer that justifies your countrymen dying. Trade?

3) We spend more tax dollars than any other country per citizen in providing healthcare. Healthcare reform here needs to address the cost of care.

4)  I'm looking at results.. not perceived positions. Shouldn't we all?

Yes our laws vary by state. Which I think is a good thing. An idea that came from a liberal minded conservative .

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

1) Less resistance maybe yet same results

At present.  Having said that, I expect to see same-sex marriage pretty soon (they'd already have it in Canberra if John Howard wasn't such an arrogant prick)

There is a movement in the states as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/28/same.sex.marriage/

ZombieVampire! wrote:

So am I .  Trade and defence are often raised, but given that in 50 years of siding with the US we have yet to see any benefits I find them both foolish.

I agree.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Here people are complaining about wait times more than costs.

Thats one of the arguments against socialized healthcare here.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I was talking about politicians when I made the statement.  Having said that, there are a few big differences (like gun laws).

Gun laws vary by state. Each state has it's own constitution that citizens vote on.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Depends on the country.  For the US, your big enough for it to work/make sense.  We're only about as big as one of your states, though, and really need to go the other way (increased standardisation).

That's exactly why it doesn't make sense (size). It would be similar to the whole of Europe being administered by the EU. The larger the government the less likely the accountability, please trust me on this one..lol. Citizens have more freedom when the states have direct control of their laws. Sovereignty should stay with the states except in matters of common defense. Unfortunately this is the case a lot of the time here.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Yeah, but ours only failed because of John Howard: that is, he was the only significant resistance.

I think once California gets it's foothold the rest of the nation will begin to fall inline.. the bible belt might take longer than most though.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Couldn't people with private insurance just go to a private hospital?
Are people seriously arguing against free healthcare because the queue would be too long?

It's one of the arguments. People feel that the quality of care would also depreciate since private hospitals would be forced to cut back in order to remain competitive.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Yeah, but here they don't, and I suspect you'll find they're more restricted than any US state, and there's very little resistance.  Of course that was only one example, there are others.  Fewer legal exemptions for religion, for example.

There is more pressure to remove those religious exemptions now. I'm sure this has a lot to do with the crackpot religous leaders now sticking there nose in politics.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I'd personally argue that it's more about balance: the states protect people from the feds, and vice versa.  Unfortunately, we've lost that balance here.

States almost always work in the best interest or their constituent. They are trumped by the feds though. I personally don't feel comfortable being taxed $188,000 for the Lobster Institute in Maine...lol. Bigger is not better here. It's easier to throw a local politician out than some senator in Washington.

To be honest I think the whole you are "this" or "that" mentality is on it's way out. The people I interact with here couldn't care less about any single party. They would throw their own Mom under the bus if it meant lower gas prices. You would never know it by paying attention to American media though. They thrive on the drama in politics. People are getting fed up with the perceived loyalty to one party/mentality.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Which is understandable.  There's substantially less party loyalty here (though all parties have their die hards).  Having said that, I'd suggest that perhaps the reason the states act in your best interest is because there's someone looking over their shoulder (absolute power, and all that).

Feasible in theory but unfortunately I have a hard time believing some Washington diplomat knee deep in bureaucracy really cares. Although they try to sell us that crap as they battle for congressional seats. Our state representatives have to answer directly and they do not have the luxury of hiding behind the scapegoat of partisan politics.

Yes in terms of protecting basic human rights the Feds should step in. That's about it.

well george washington did warn not to create politcal parties so i think thats where the problem lies
not only in political parties but the fact that we only have 2 (not including the less popular ones)

the electoral college would not work if we had more that 2
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Obviously.  Anything beyond basic rights is subject to the will of the people.


Of course, what constitutes a basic right is always an interesting discussion.

Unfortunately it wasn't always so obvious. In Arkansas the feds had to call in the 101st airborne to stop people from using bricks to crack the skulls of black kids going to school .

The will of the people: