Go Back   AFA Forums > Secularism and Social Issues > Ethics and Justice

Ethics and Justice Ethics, morality, and justice in society

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #81  
Old 11th September 2017, 02:34 PM
MikeJay MikeJay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,300
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Quote:
142857 said View Post
I drove past a Ford dealership yesterday.

No sign of Ford up and leaving. In fact that dealership has recently upgraded their showroom to fit all the new Mustangs and Everests they are selling.

It's called globalisation.
Yeah ok, most of us realise I was talking about their local manufacturing plants.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11th September 2017, 02:36 PM
MikeJay MikeJay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,300
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Quote:
The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
Sometimes. CJerome asset-strips the biz, moves the funds to somewhere like the Caymans, and leaves many creditors, workers, etc, shall way say "without a nickel".
True, this does happen sometimes, and I say nail the fuckers to the wall.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11th September 2017, 02:37 PM
MikeJay MikeJay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,300
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
Scale it down?

Your own example had them employing 2000 workers.



Details, please.
Local auto manufacturing.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12th September 2017, 08:12 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Then things got awkward
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 3,894
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Local auto manufacturing? Multinationals, who didn't get offered enough corporate welfare to persuade them to stay, moved operations to their other sites.

Hardly Jerome The Implausible Hero.

Now, are we done with multi-billion-dollar welfare?

Let's look at something simple Finland is doing to reduce homelessness.

Quote:
Dr O'Sullivan, who is also a professor of social policy at Trinity College Dublin, said while homelessness was a growing problem in many Western nations, there were countries that had successfully dealt with the issue.

Finland builds homes for homeless

He said Finland had investigated the issue of homelessness and decided "it's not that complex".

"They said 'the first thing we need to deal with people's issues is housing', so they built a lot of housing for homeless people," he told ABC Radio Melbourne's Dave O'Neil.

"From 2008 to 2015 they built 6,000 units specifically for homeless people."

These permanent, supported homes have reduced Finland's need for crisis accommodation, he said.

"In Dublin, where I'm from, back in 2008 we had about 600 emergency shelter beds in Dublin, they had the same in Helsinki in Finland.

"Today we have about 2,200 emergency beds; in Finland they have 54."
__________________


There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing.
Come and see the real thing, come and see the real thing, come and see the real thing,
Come and see...

Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12th September 2017, 11:12 AM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 826
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Quote:
The Irreverent Mr Black said View Post
Local auto manufacturing? Multinationals, who didn't get offered enough corporate welfare to persuade them to stay, moved operations to their other sites.

Hardly Jerome The Implausible Hero.

Now, are we done with multi-billion-dollar welfare?

Let's look at something simple Finland is doing to reduce homelessness.
no, no, no, no, no!

this will only encourage people to become homeless, just like welfare encourages people to be dole bludgers. the solution is to give companies who employ non skilled people a tax break so they can employ the homeless so they don't have to be homeless. but only if they pass a drug test.
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Reply With Quote
Like odd, wolty liked this post
Laugh at The Irreverent Mr Black, Goldenmane laughed at this post
  #86  
Old 12th September 2017, 11:14 AM
The Irreverent Mr Black's Avatar
The Irreverent Mr Black The Irreverent Mr Black is offline
Then things got awkward
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toontown
Posts: 3,894
Default Re: Welfare Users?

@Stub King: But would those companies pass a drug test?

Enquiring minds want to know.
__________________


There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing.
Come and see the real thing, come and see the real thing, come and see the real thing,
Come and see...

Reply With Quote
Laugh at Stub King laughed at this post
  #87  
Old 12th September 2017, 01:19 PM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,170
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Quote:
MikeJay said View Post
Yeah ok, most of us realise I was talking about their local manufacturing plants.
Ford are in the business of making money. Making cars is a means to that end.

If Ford can manufacture cars in Thailand or Mexico much more cheaply than they can in Australia, and the people who own and run Ford can make a lot more money that way, what do you think Ford is going to do?

Tax breaks for the very wealthy don't count for anything in that scenario.

Personally I knew that the elimination of import duties was only ever going to have one outcome, and only those drinking the neoliberalism Kool Aid thought otherwise.
__________________
".....If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

- Marcus Aurelius (claimed)
Reply With Quote
Thank The Irreverent Mr Black thanked this post
  #88  
Old 12th September 2017, 08:21 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is online now
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,234
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Quote:
MikeJay said View Post
Quote:
Goldenmane said View Post
Scale it down?

Your own example had them employing 2000 workers.



Details, please.
Local auto manufacturing.
Not an example that fits your scenario.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 13th September 2017, 10:34 AM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 826
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Quote:
142857 said View Post
Ford are in the business of making money. Making cars is a means to that end.

If Ford can manufacture cars in Thailand or Mexico much more cheaply than they can in Australia, and the people who own and run Ford can make a lot more money that way, what do you think Ford is going to do?

Tax breaks for the very wealthy don't count for anything in that scenario.

Personally I knew that the elimination of import duties was only ever going to have one outcome, and only those drinking the neoliberalism Kool Aid thought otherwise.
granted. but the counter argument is whether it makes sense to continue to prop up industries where we don't have a competitive edge in a sense that we do not hold a comparative advantage?

IMO, it does not. in the long run these efforts ultimately fail. and worse than that, they perpetuate a false sense of security so when the rug is pulled the impact is acute and rapid.

The Australian economy was always essentially a primary sector economy: natural resources, agriculture. manufacturing made sense in the 50s but not today, when we are at the doorstep of Asia with 2B+ labour force happy to work for cents on the dollar.

Our comparative advantage (such as it is after decades of stagnating education while the rest of SE Asia caught up) is brain power. Imagine what our economy would look like if we had a Samsung, a Pfeizer and a couple of Symantecs? the potential economic gains in tech, genomics, bio tech, ag tech, cyber security, virtual tourism and many more fields is enormous and we are at inflection points in many of them.

fuck ... take renewables. even if you do not believe it is needed, the world does. does it not make economic sense to invest in this industry so we can sell it to the world?

Now ... before you all take me for a pessimistic cynic, I am sure the govt knows this. I am also sure they have plans and that they will get to them once they got over the hump of solving the really important problems of who gets to be a citizen, how to protect ourselves from the hoards of the wretched lapping our shores and how to end the age of entitlement.

</rant>
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)

Last edited by Stub King; 13th September 2017 at 10:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
Like Goldenmane liked this post
  #90  
Old 14th September 2017, 01:55 PM
142857's Avatar
142857 142857 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,170
Default Re: Welfare Users?

Quote:
Stub King said View Post
granted. but the counter argument is whether it makes sense to continue to prop up industries where we don't have a competitive edge in a sense that we do not hold a comparative advantage?

IMO, it does not. in the long run these efforts ultimately fail. and worse than that, they perpetuate a false sense of security so when the rug is pulled the impact is acute and rapid.

The Australian economy was always essentially a primary sector economy: natural resources, agriculture. manufacturing made sense in the 50s but not today, when we are at the doorstep of Asia with 2B+ labour force happy to work for cents on the dollar.

Our comparative advantage (such as it is after decades of stagnating education while the rest of SE Asia caught up) is brain power. Imagine what our economy would look like if we had a Samsung, a Pfeizer and a couple of Symantecs? the potential economic gains in tech, genomics, bio tech, ag tech, cyber security, virtual tourism and many more fields is enormous and we are at inflection points in many of them.

fuck ... take renewables. even if you do not believe it is needed, the world does. does it not make economic sense to invest in this industry so we can sell it to the world?

Now ... before you all take me for a pessimistic cynic, I am sure the govt knows this. I am also sure they have plans and that they will get to them once they got over the hump of solving the really important problems of who gets to be a citizen, how to protect ourselves from the hoards of the wretched lapping our shores and how to end the age of entitlement.

</rant>
I largely agree with you. I was simply pointing out a few things about the demise of the car industry in Australia and how it had nothing to do with the rest of us not reading “Atlas Shrugged” enough times.

The Button Car Plan was based on the idea that if we removed tariff protections gradually from the car manufacturing industry in Australia then we would end up with an internationally competitive car manufacturing industry. This, of course, was based on the rather nonsensical assumption that the only thing preventing Australia from having an internationally competitive car manufacturing industry was the tariff barriers.

Of course, as we all saw, once the tariff protections were gone, the only thing keeping the Australian car industry afloat was continuous injections of public funds. Which was, of course, unsustainable both economically and politically.
Anyone who believed that any other outcome was within the realms of possibility was really guzzling the neoliberalism Kool Aid.

My point was not that we should have continued to prop-up an uncompetitive industry.

Perhaps by taking a longer-term view and modernising (mostly via automation) the Australian car-manufacturing industry, and by maintaining some degree of protection for the local industry as long as required, we could still have a car manufacturing industry in Australia. But to what end? So that Aussie robots could have jobs instead of Chinese or American robots?

I don’t subscribe to the view that government should simply “get out of the way” and let private industry and the free market determine the shape that our economy takes. We need a diverse and robust economy that can provide reasonably stable employment to most of us, most of the time.

One problem is that, as a country whose economy is to a large extent reliant on primary production, we are largely at the mercy of the ebb and flow of global demand for the commodities we produce. When primary producers are making a shitload of money from high demand for the commodities they provide, the rest of the economy suffers (commonly known as the resource curse or Dutch disease: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse). When demand for those commodities falls, the rest of the economy is supposed to pick up again. Except that we can’t re-establish overnight the expertise, knowledge and infrastructure we lost when we allowed other industries to fold during a commodities boom. Some “intervention” to keep the economy healthy during both good economic times and bad economic times may be justified IMO.

It’s not an easy job managing an economy, particularly one as vulnerable to external forces as Australia’s economy. That is why we pay our politicians and bureaucrats such large sums of money. IMO we need to start holding them to a much higher standard.
__________________
".....If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

- Marcus Aurelius (claimed)
Reply With Quote
Like Goldenmane liked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.