Hi Bob, thought I'd start a new thread to follow up on my questions. You can merge the two topics if you prefer that.


BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Thanks Bob. I was wondering whether you are an official LDP person. Quote: So enforce basic rule of law (punish murderers, rapists, thieves and frauds) but leave the rest of us well enough alone. So we're not all Keynesians? Not since the GFC. I think to those who understand economics (of which I'm not claiming to be one, just one who listens to people who understand economics) economic central planning has proven to be a disaster. If you're really interested, read Thomas Sowell's 'The Housing Boom and Bust'. The Liberal Democrats are strong supporters of free market capitalism. Perhaps the only free market party in Australia. The Liberals aren't true support of the free market. They are as keynesian as the Labor party, who are increasingly even less free market.

We didn't have economic central planning leading up to the GFC. We did have the reserve bank pushing interest rates up. In your opinion, what would have happened to the housing bubble if the reserve bank had not been pushing up interest rates?


BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - market responses to climate change Can you elaborate please? What are your thoughts on carbon taxes? There have been some favourable reactions, among classical liberals, to a carbon tax if it would provide enough revenue to significantly cut other taxes. But to do that, you'd want carbon production to remain high so you could collect more taxes off it. And that kind of defeats the purpose. So the Liberal Democratic Party is not for the carbon tax. What we mean by market responses to climate change, is that we believe the government is too incompetent to deal with the problem and it'll be cheaper and probably better dealt with by the market. Think of it like this. Who has a better chance of getting it right, a handful of elected officials or the other 20 million of us choosing to use solar, or investing in alternative energy, making our own decisions as individuals working cooperatively on a voluntary basis. I think that has always been the best way to do things.

So you support consumption rather than pollution taxes?

On your point about market mechanisms, the reason the government is stepping in is because the market has failed to correct the problem. This is not just a temporary oversight, but a fundamental limitation on what an unregulated free market can achieve. The free market relies only on people acting in their own self interest, but that does not work if only some of the people who will be affected by a transaction are involved in the transaction.


BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - private property rights and the privatisation of most public land So no national parks or suburban parks? We'd probably like more private parks but public parks are popular that's why we have a policy of taxpayers having more control over the parks they pay for. Some national parks charge a fee to the people who supposedly "own" them.

What is a private park? Does it have a big fence to keep poor people out?


BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - cultivation of GM crops, subject to safety screening In practice does this mean a lower standard of screening? They are already legal here, right? Yeah, we just mean relaxing regulations on GM foods. Allow for GM foods to be cultivated, but still subject them to safety screenings. You don't need to lower the standards for screening, just allow for GM foods to be screened. I think if you do there'll be more GM foods passed because I don't believe they're as bad as most people think.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - private ownership, breeding and trade of endangered species (including keeping native animals as pets) What about those that are unlikely to be breedable or profitable in captivity? (BTW, this applies to pretty much all of them). Well if they aren't breedable or profitable, then why own them? It would make no difference. So what's the harm? If we can save some endangered species by letting people farm them, then why not?

Because they make nice pets. Or coats. People don't just own animals to sell to other people so they can sell them back and forth to each other. Also, I think any endangered species that are easy to farm would be on the road to recovery anyway. I challenge you to find a sinlge example of a species that is still endangered today that would be easy to farm.


BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - abolishing government ownership and control of water, water recycling subsidies and water tank mandates Can you elaborate on this a bit? Would you change the current arrangements with farmers? I'll look into that one for you. To be honest I don't know if the policy is any different for farmers.

It's the smae principle for everyone, though the regulations differ substantially. Basically, without communal (government) control, everyone uses all they can while they can, then it runs out, then you have none until the drought breaks. This is not a good scenario.


BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: - sustainable hunting of species such as crocodiles and kangaroos You left whales and dolphins off the list. I hope you guys are not a bunch of tree hugging hippies. lol, well allowing hunting for crocodiles and kangaroos (which we cull every few years anyway) means hunters have something to hunt so they don't hunt other less common animals. I don't know if we have a policy on whaling actually. I assume we support it at least in private waters. I know I do.

Can you give me an example of private water with whales in it?


BobH wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:57pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2010 at 8:28pm: Quote: We just look at the evidence that shows private land is much more well protected than public land. Can you elaborate on this please? Well, read this article on private conservation for example. But a lot of it just rooted in common sense. Private property owners have a strong incentive to protect their own land. It's theirs. You protect your property don't you?

Sure I do. I chop down any native trees I find on it. Farmers, who own most private land, have an incentive to chop down the native forests and replace it with some kind of monoculture. Sure, they have an incentive to ensure they can continue profiting from the land, but that is not the same thing as an incentive to conserve biodiversity or achieve any other obvious environmental goals.

FD has raised some valid issues here - I'm wondering why Bob hasn't responded...yet!?

Equitist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 3:07pm:

FD has raised some valid issues here - I'm wondering why Bob hasn't responded...yet!?

Settle down. I'm getting too it. I'm just busy at the moment carrying out my hidden agenda to destroy this country socio-economically. No seriously, I have emails from voters in my electorate to respond to, emails for lobby groups to respond to, other threads in this forum to respond to. I am a bit busy. Please try to understand. I will get to everybody's questions. But I'm just one man.

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2010 at 10:14pm:

We didn't have economic central planning leading up to the GFC. We did have the reserve bank pushing interest rates up. In your opinion, what would have happened to the housing bubble if the reserve bank had not been pushing up interest rates?

The U.S. Federal Reserve is obviously not blameless in the lead-up to the GFC. It kept interest rates low for years, which undoubtably led to an increased demand for housing. Because low interest rates mean lower mortgage repayments. But that's not why the housing bubble bursted. Increased demand for housing doesn't have to mean high housing prices. In places where supply was free to rise with demand, there were more houses but housing prices remained fairly steady. The problem was in places where supply was artificially restricted. That's what led to the boom in housing prices and that's why there weren't housing bubbles everywhere. Look at coastal California where there were and are severe housing restrictions and where there were also skyrocketing housing pricing leading up to the big bust that caused the GFC. So central planners with their building restrictions caused housing prices to skyrocket. Not so much interest rates, although they played a part in effecting demand. But it was the supply side that was corrupted by central planning and that's why there was a big housing boom and bust.

So you support consumption rather than pollution taxes?

The LDP believe in full cost accounting 'whole of life' costs and not be subject to subsidies, bonuses or penalties based on non-scientific evaluation. Moreover, it must not transfer any of its costs to society by any means other than through price.

LDP supports individual consumption over government consumption. Individuals should be able to make up their own mind about how they wish to use their money. Consumers would be given more choice and then they can make up their own minds. If greener technologies are cheaper (full cost) then why does governments need to give them more favors.

why do so many people trust their local politican with lifes most important issues. education and health.  

Through subsidies etc. the goverment involvement means that normal market values of supply and demand are not in power. If car regulation and manufacturing subsidies where not given in act how would the current car market look? Would we have more green safe cars or would they look like Russian cars?  

Milton Friedman and Ron Paul are interesting to watch.

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2010 at 10:17pm:

Because they make nice pets. Or coats. People don't just own animals to sell to other people so they can sell them back and forth to each other. Also, I think any endangered species that are easy to farm would be on the road to recovery anyway. I challenge you to find a sinlge example of a species that is still endangered today that would be easy to farm.

Even making coats out of endangered species means having to breed that animal if you want to keep making coats.

There's been a big push over the years to have more legal tiger farms. So there's one endangered species that people want to farm.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

It's the smae principle for everyone, though the regulations differ substantially. Basically, without communal (government) control, everyone uses all they can while they can, then it runs out, then you have none until the drought breaks. This is not a good scenario.

Can you think of many examples of shortages of products or services provided by the sector that are in high demand? If there was money to be made in water, it wont run out.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Can you give me an example of private water with whales in it?

Im saying if someone owned some water with whales in it they should be free to hunt them. Obviously that's not the case now, I don't know of any examples of that. I was just giving a scenario in which I would support whaling.


freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Sure I do. I chop down any native trees I find on it. Farmers, who own most private land, have an incentive to chop down the native forests and replace it with some kind of monoculture. Sure, they have an incentive to ensure they can continue profiting from the land, but that is not the same thing as an incentive to conserve biodiversity or achieve any other obvious environmental goals.

There's a general rule when it comes to environmental protection. If it looks nice, it's usually clean. Green trees and blue water. The greenest trees and bluest waters are found on private property because people like their property to look nice. In a lot of cases, those green trees and blue waters have been achieved by chemical cleansing. But I am not one of these environmentalists who think any unnatural chemical contribution to nature is bad for it. I have no problem with spraying chemicals around in fact I am very favourable to the idea of pumping chemicals in the atmosphere to negate global warming.

Quote:

It kept interest rates low for years, which undoubtably led to an increased demand for housing.

What was the interest rate in the US in the leadup to the GFC? I think you'll find that interest rates greatly reduced the bubble rather than increasing it. Every time I see this claim made it always completely ignores the timing.

Josh:


Quote:

The LDP believe in full cost accounting 'whole of life' costs and not be subject to subsidies, bonuses or penalties based on non-scientific evaluation. Moreover, it must not transfer any of its costs to society by any means other than through price.

That sounds like the LDP would support carbon taxes.

Bob:


Quote:

Even making coats out of endangered species means having to breed that animal if you want to keep making coats.

No it doesn't. It only means breeding if breeding is profitable. Market forces alone could to lead to farming, wild harvest, or extinction and there is nothing all to suggest it won't lead to extinction. This is a big assumption on your part that has no basis in reality. There are plenty of examples of animals hunted to extinction or almost extinction for their coats due to lack of regulation.


Quote:

Can you think of many examples of shortages of products or services provided by the sector that are in high demand? If there was money to be made in water, it wont run out.

It doesn't run out because it is so heavily regulated. Even with the regulations there are problems. It is the nature of the regulation that matters, not the absence of it.


Quote:

Im saying if someone owned some water with whales in it they should be free to hunt them. Obviously that's not the case now, I don't know of any examples of that. I was just giving a scenario in which I would support whaling.

So you wouldn't support whaling normally?


Quote:

There's a general rule when it comes to environmental protection. If it looks nice, it's usually clean...

There is no such general rule. You seem to have missed the point entirely. This has nothing to do with biodiversity. IF anything, you are promoting the opposite of biodiversity. You are confusing English gardens with wilderness.

freediver wrote on Aug 8^th, 2010 at 10:14pm:

What is a private park? Does it have a big fence to keep poor people out?

One of the most famous parks in the world is Central Park in Manhattan, New York City. It is a public park paid for by the government. But it's maintained by private charities. That's because the government was failing to do so. There were big dirt patches where there used to be green grass and muddy water that used to be clear blue. So the people of New York City donated to private charities, demanded the city of New York allow charities to look after Central Park and now it's beautiful again. It's not just charities either. The quintessential capitalist Donald Trump stepped in to build Central Park's ice rink after six years of the city of New York floundering around trying to get it done. Trump did it in six months. The government had six years and failed.

Private enterprise and private charities just seem to do a better job at almost everything than government. I think the main reason for that is because government takes the money that it spends by force. Private enterprise and private charities rely on people voluntary giving them their money either in trade for goods or services, or as a donation (in the case of a charity). So they need to convince people they are getting their money's worth. Charities need to actually do good work if they want people to donate. But you are forced to give your money to the government and if they don't do a good job they say it's because we aren't giving them enough money and they need to take more. The solution to poor public education always seems to be spend more. But they need to collect more taxes to spend more. The solution to poor public transport always seems to be spend more. No, the solution is to privatise it!

So one park in New York, that is actually still owned by the government, proves that private parks work better?

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 8:42am:

So one park in New York, that is actually still owned by the government, proves that private parks work better?

That's just one example. The evidence that the private sector does a better job than government is everywhere. In terms of efficiency, there's pretty much nothing the government can do better than the private sector. I used to think that at least the government can operate a military more effectively than the private sector but we've even seen that belief challenged in Iraq and Afghanistan where there are thousands of private contractors on the ground. I'm not supporting a privatised military but it does make you question if there's anything the private sector can't do better.

BobH wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 12:06pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2010 at 8:42am: So one park in New York, that is actually still owned by the government, proves that private parks work better? That's just one example. The evidence that the private sector does a better job than government is everywhere. In terms of efficiency, there's pretty much nothing the government can do better than the private sector. I used to think that at least the government can operate a military more effectively than the private sector but we've even seen that belief challenged in Iraq and Afghanistan where there are thousands of private contractors on the ground. I'm not supporting a privatised military but it does make you question if there's anything the private sector can't do better.

If the evidence is everywhere, why is it that the only example you can give of private parks being better is of a government owned park?

If you want to see what private parks look like, go to the gold coast. They will be fun, but they cost a fortune to get in, you have to drive a few hours to get there, there are no BBQ facilities and there is nowhere to play cricket.

The evidence is everywhere meaning beyond just parks. It's hard to compare public parks to private parks when the government dictates where parks can be built and has a monopoly on inner-city and suburban parks. That's why you have to drive a couple of areas to go to a private park. City planning ruins everything once again.

I'm probably going to merge this with the other thread as well. It's not a big enough issue to justify it's own thread. Maybe I'll create a thread on privatisation in general. There'll be a lot more to discuss that way.

Bob, you claimed in other threads that the US federal reserve contributed to the GFC by keeping interest rates too low. Do you have the actual numbers to back this up - ie the official interest rate at various times in the leadup to the GFC? Maybe a plot?

There's a lot of detail to go into here. So I recommend you read this journal by the Cato institute. It explains the Federal Reserve's role in the GFC including expanding the money supply and lowering the Fed funds interest rate to a point where it was actually negative in real times for two and a half years.

Can this be merged with your questions thread? I don't see the point of a new thread. Especially since there's not much more to say that the article I've given you doesn't.

BobH wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 4:12am:

freediver wrote on Aug 8th, 2010 at 10:14pm: We didn't have economic central planning leading up to the GFC. We did have the reserve bank pushing interest rates up. In your opinion, what would have happened to the housing bubble if the reserve bank had not been pushing up interest rates? The U.S. Federal Reserve is obviously not blameless in the lead-up to the GFC. It kept interest rates low for years, which undoubtably led to an increased demand for housing. Because low interest rates mean lower mortgage repayments. But that's not why the housing bubble bursted. Increased demand for housing doesn't have to mean high housing prices. In places where supply was free to rise with demand, there were more houses but housing prices remained fairly steady. The problem was in places where supply was artificially restricted. That's what led to the boom in housing prices and that's why there weren't housing bubbles everywhere. Look at coastal California where there were and are severe housing restrictions and where there were also skyrocketing housing pricing leading up to the big bust that caused the GFC. So central planners with their building restrictions caused housing prices to skyrocket. Not so much interest rates, although they played a part in effecting demand. But it was the supply side that was corrupted by central planning and that's why there was a big housing boom and bust.

So huge gaps there Bob

While I understand the affordability argument - but in this case it's not correct.

Corporate Governance was much to blame which they tried to fix with Sarbane-Oxley in 2002 - yes I know the poo didn't hit the fan until 2008 but this is a decades in the making

and also Clinton's promise of everyone should be able to buy a house didn't help either