Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Rotayjay]

Good on the both of you for putting on your guernseys and outing which tribe you play for.

Would be interested to hear from the both of you the principles that you use to determine what should be owned, funded and controlled by the federal Government using taxpayer funds.

Take 'health care' for example. Surely your not suggesting every aspect of health care should be government owned. So where do you draw the line and why?

My principle is that if it's essential, it should probably be government-owned so it can be equitably distributed and not exploited. Why do I exclude food, clothing and housing? I admit that's a bit arbitrary, but I don't think those three things lend themselves to being monopolies because the utility of variety and choice is greater than the utility of equality. I hate the supermarket profiteering, but I'd hate it more if the government decided what type of olives I could buy. However, I think government should go back to doing about 20% of new home builds like it used to.

The classic case is public transport. You can't take your morning commute elsewhere, so it should be in public hands and run for the public good, not some greedy corporation that runs it into the ground.

I believe your wealth should have absolutely no bearing on what health care you receive, only your clinical needs. This public-private hybrid health care model we have is shit. Granted, that opens up the issue of what care is necessary enough to be funded by the public purse. I just hate the idea of Johnny waiting a year for a knee surgery in the public system while Jimmy gets it done next week because he can afford it. It's not right.

And perhaps most of all, I think we need to go Scandinavian-style, get rid of private schools, and funnel those billions into making a good public system. No child should get a better education because their parents are better-off.

 

[Festerz]

My principle is that if it's essential, it should probably be government-owned so it can be equitably distributed and not exploited. Why do I exclude food, clothing and housing? I admit that's a bit arbitrary, but I don't think those three things lend themselves to being monopolies because the utility of variety and choice is greater than the utility of equality. I hate the supermarket profiteering, but I'd hate it more if the government decided what type of olives I could buy. However, I think government should go back to doing about 20% of new home builds like it used to.

The classic case is public transport. You can't take your morning commute elsewhere, so it should be in public hands and run for the public good, not some greedy corporation that runs it into the ground.

I believe your wealth should have absolutely no bearing on what health care you receive, only your clinical needs. This public-private hybrid health care model we have is shit. Granted, that opens up the issue of what care is necessary enough to be funded by the public purse. I just hate the idea of Johnny waiting a year for a knee surgery in the public system while Jimmy gets it done next week because he can afford it. It's not right.

And perhaps most of all, I think we need to go Scandinavian-style, get rid of private schools, and funnel those billions into making a good public system. No child should get a better education because their parents are better-off.

Thanks for your honest and detailed response. Appreciated. Will come back with some reflections in coming days.

 

[Chief]

We need artists, musicians, philosophers, filmmakers etc.

Bruv we got ChatGPT now!

 

[blueboy25]

Also note how this thread has shifted quickly from Upgrade Albo and his bribery scandal so quickly. You've all fallen for this trap. Never forget - Albanese is a thief.

I am really enjoying Dutton still going hard on the travel rorts........oh hang on he has gone in to hiding when it was revealed private plane pete has plenty of skeletons in his closet along with Bridget McRorts

 

[JackOutback]

Bruv we got ChatGPT now!

Making 30-second songs for the TikTok.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Why can't the government just borrow more money to fund those social programs and pay to put moderate to high achievers into academic busywork for three to five years?

It could, and there is definitely an argument that borrowing funds for Government is a victimless use of funds as there will always be a future to pay that off, unlike people, the Government doesn't die and can keep pushing costs into the future indefinitely. However, there is still the question of servicing the debt and the size of government generally. The country still needs to be able to service its debt obligations or we'll be unable to borrow those funds in the future and the larger the debt is, the larger government needs to be to service it. As someone with deep distrust in the democratic system and large government due to the inherent lack of efficiency in government, I oppose any creep towards big government - which would be the case if we just borrowed more money to fund more social programs. The HECS system is a good system which allows individuals to obtain higher education with the Government only foregoing the difference between CPI and market interest - a humble loss of revenue that is offset by the benefit it allows to people to obtain higher education. The issue arises when instead of individuals paying off their own debt we just allow Government to - which leads (in combination with other government spending on welfare, refugee support, subsidies for renewable energy etc etc) to a larger government, more inefficiencies and ultimately more cost to the taxpayer. The government's focus should be in reducing its size and its impact on society.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Who are you to decide what's 'crap' and what's not? I might think your job has little value and vice versa. If the only function of society is to churn out people that can do practical jobs, that's a pretty shit society. We need artists, musicians, philosophers, filmmakers etc. It's enough that some of these pursuits result in less long-term financial gain without adding higher debt as well just because of reverse intellectualism snobbery.

I agree that society needs artists, musicians, filmmakers and philosophers - I disagree that the public needs to pay for that. Anyone wishing to do any of those things can go and study those topics independently at a public library. The only reason to attend university is either: 1. to obtain a degree for a job that requires that qualification as a pre-conditions; or 2. to obtain an expert, tailored education service. You don't need a degree to be a musician, an artist, philsopher etc, it may help but its not necessary. And while you may benefit from expert education and a tailored system - that is a service that should be paid for and need not be gifted to you by virtue of your desires. Again, no one is saying that HECS should be cancelled, but having tax payers debts fund others education is selfish.

 

[nut]

As a leftist, I believe the following should be entirely government-owned:

-Child care
-Schools
-Health care
-TAFE
-Universities
-Electricity
-Gas
-Water
-Internet
-Roads
-Public transport
-Dentistry

A lot of inequality and ****ing around would be saved.

100% agree..

And I’d add 30% public housing and government controlled natural resources.

Bring back Gough

 

[Chief]

Who are you to decide what's 'crap' and what's not? I might think your job has little value and vice versa. If the only function of society is to churn out people that can do practical jobs, that's a pretty shit society. We need artists, musicians, philosophers, filmmakers etc. It's enough that some of these pursuits result in less long-term financial gain without adding higher debt as well just because of reverse intellectualism snobbery.

Music and literature generate billions upon billions in income every year.

Arts courses are apparently cheap to deliver. Even Law, which is just an arts degree in the end. Books, staff and lecture space really. Music probably more expensive and specialised.

Meanwhile content for many courses is just being AI generated, or planned to be AI generated, according to a few people I know who are now retraining.

 

[JackOutback]

You don't need a degree to be a musician, an artist, philsopher etc, it may help but its not necessary.

Come again?

 

[Chief]

The whole point of HECS is that you pay for it once you get a job,

Or you pay early.

Like, maybe get a well off parent to support you and cover the HECS at a tax-effective time.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Come again?

Bravo Jack, you prove again the level of your intelligence extends only as far as criticisms of others for their spelling online. Clap, clap.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

The whole point of HECS is that you pay for it once you get a job, thereby it allows those without the financial wherewithal to achieve an education and pay for it once they have the benefit of that education.

Wiping that debt encourages those who don't use that education and rewards those that aren't contributing to society from their education.

Society also benefits with an educated public - you need to include that in your calculations. The quantity of graduates who are not contributing to society would be vanishingly small, but graduates who cannot pay off their HECS or cannot buy a property because of their HECS debt is a far greater issue for society.

If you want younger people to start having children, then we must create the environment for that to occur.

 

[Festerz]

Come again?

Off topic but it's entirely possible to become recognised as a scholarly philosopher without a formal qualification in philosophy or any field. Many recognised philosophers in history have done just that - much like musicians and authors not needing formal qualifications either.

The word philosophy simply comes from the Greek term for 'lover of wisdom' btw.

Which is why the highest formal level of qualification in any formal field of study is called a PhD. And even then universities frequently award Honorary PhDs to persons who (in the institutions' view) have made a significant contribution to society or a particular field - waving any academic requirements. (Diddy got one from Harvard for example Now revoked)

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Society also benefits with an educated public - you need to include that in your calculations. The quantity of graduates who are not contributing to society would be vanishingly small, but graduates who cannot pay off their HECS or cannot buy a property because of their HECS debt is a far greater issue for society.

If you want younger people to start having children, then we must create the environment for that to occur.

The benefits of an educated public end at high school for my mind. I don't see any benefit, and in fact see vast negatives, from people studying useless degrees like breakdancing theory, gender studies, intersectional social studies etc.

 

[Chief]

I don't see any benefit, and in fact see vast negatives, from people studying useless degrees like breakdancing theory, gender studies, intersectional social studies etc.

You know how few people actually do those sorts of courses?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

You know how few people actually do those sorts of courses?

One would be too many (if the public is paying for it - if they're paying for it, go right ahead).

 

[kalex6251]

The benefits of an educated public end at high school for my mind. I don't see any benefit, and in fact see vast negatives, from people studying useless degrees like breakdancing theory, gender studies, intersectional social studies etc.

the ramsey centre sponsored BA in Western Civilisation at Wollongong Uni on your hit list?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

the ramsey centre sponsored BA in Western Civilisation at Wollongong Uni on your hit list?

If paid for by the taxpayer, yes.

 

[JackOutback]

Bravo Jack, you prove again the level of your intelligence extends only as far as criticisms of others for their spelling online. Clap, clap.

The criticism wasn't of the spelling, it was the idea that philosophy doesn't warrant university education. Could you research philosophy in your own time and become quite the deep thinker? Sure, you could also study law in your own time and have an acceptable level of knowledge? Sure. But both would benefit from further education given the complexity of the information involved.

The benefits of an educated public end at high school for my mind. I don't see any benefit, and in fact see vast negatives, from people studying useless degrees like breakdancing theory, gender studies, intersectional social studies etc.

Of course you don't see the benefit in studying the history of gender and racial oppression and how it could be improved in the future, it doesn't benefit you.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

The criticism wasn't of the spelling, it was the idea that philosophy doesn't warrant university education. Could you research philosophy in your own time and become quite the deep thinker? Sure, you could also study law in your own time and have an acceptable level of knowledge? Sure. But both would benefit from further education given the complexity of the information involved.


Of course you don't see the benefit in studying the history of gender and racial oppression and how it could be improved in the future, it doesn't benefit you.

Ah apologies, the lack of context in your post left it open to misinterpretation. I see you've discussed that point with another poster and I agree with them, you don't need a degree to be a philosopher.

As to the second point - you're very funny, props to you. I'll write that in my diary tonight "JackOutback made a very funny joke today".

 

[JackOutback]

Ah apologies, the lack of context in your post left it open to misinterpretation. I see you've discussed that point with another poster and I agree with them, you don't need a degree to be a philosopher.

As to the second point - you're very funny, props to you. I'll write that in my diary tonight "JackOutback made a very funny joke today".

Theoretically, you don't need a degree to be anything, but society has moved in that direction. Why is journalism and teaching and nursing a university degree when all would benefit as much from on-the-job training, while philosophy, which requires deep understanding of complex issues, not?

And your diary will be full if you make a not every time I make a funny.

 

[Kram]

I'm not stopping her taking a course that leads to shitter job prospects

I am refuting the claim this shit should be 'free'.

I'd also argue good artists, musicians, philosophers, filmmakers wouldn't need uni to do it. Especially artists and musicians in this day and age