Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 14
Send Topic Print
Sustainability Party of Australia (Read 58737 times)
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #30 - Apr 24th, 2007 at 4:20pm
 
I wouldn't trust an economist to get it right.   Generally I hear what they have to say and then conclude the opposite will be the result.   They're a little like the weather forecaster for reliability.

I agree that real experience counts in understanding an economy.  If you understand a little one (like your profit and loss) you'll understand a big one.   Not necessarily be able too manage it but the concept is the same.   Money in, minus costs = profit.

I haven't read the section on this new party freediver but I did say over at D & R where I found your link the name needs to go.  How attached are you to it?
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #31 - Apr 24th, 2007 at 4:27pm
 
I'm not deeply attached to it, but other people have indicated they like it. Perhaps sustainability has been given a bad name by the extreme left. I prefer the approach of people like Jared Diamond. Do you have a better suggestion? I just added a slogan "economically literate environmentalism."

Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
enviro
Senior Member
****
Offline


Taking Out The Trash

Posts: 323
Weethalle NSW
Gender: male
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #32 - Apr 24th, 2007 at 5:54pm
 
I thought it was going to be "economic literate enviro" Grin Grin Grin

Deepthought is right. You have to understand your audience and don't make the mistake of thinking you are only speaking to academics. Everything you write and the image you protrude has to be understood by the uneducated or you won't go very far. As for your slogan, I personally have no idea what it means but i am sure an academic will.

Don't give up trying freediver as I admire people who strive to achieve. Remember the secret is listening, not dictating and you will go a long way. It is also how we do things, not what we do.

A good party needs to work and debate between themselves and be open to change when their policies are wrong. No matter how much you believe in them you have to approach it constantly with an open mind. That is the most difficult for anyone to do. The people that can achieve this go on to bigger and better things. We generally call these people wise.

Thanks for popping in DeepThought I hope you pay us a visit from time to time as your views and opinions are important to all of us.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33313
Gender: male
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #33 - Apr 24th, 2007 at 8:41pm
 
yes, the name for a business or party can sink it.
Some of my friends started up a company years ago, one wanted to call it "S and S".
They are called Steve and Stan. That name is useless.
The other guy wanted  to call it "Brisbane Rigging Service."

Yes, in 3 words he has said where they are, what business they are in and that they are a service.

Will think of some names, throw them into the melting pot
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #34 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:02am
 
See I'm new to this so I still haven't got my head around freediver's plan.    If in fact it is some kind of handbag bashing Greens type of Party forget it.    At least as far as I'm concerned, though good luck to you.   But all you need do is see how the Greens willingly stay at the sidelines with policies which are economically unsustainable and mostly sheer lunacy.  Though they do get more than their fair share of news time so I suspect they are more about exposure for their members than about substance.

It's not enough to say we should have (anyone should have) environmentally sustainable policies, you have to ask if they are viable.  Will they work?

An economy comes first.   Not an environment.    Humans (like every other species on earth) consumes - if we don't we die.   What we need to ensure is that we do so cleanly, and without damage.

Build the economy first and consider the by-product of it.   People don't give a fecal matter for a tree if their family is hungry.

Forget economics majors and other bookish types.   If you want to be successful listen to the people when they speak.   The silent people - not the noisy rabble.    You could actually use the noisy rabble as a gauge of a policy success because they are usually opposed to the success of the nation because they don't feel a part of it.   I have no understanding of it but they seem to hate their country.   So if they protest it must be good for the nation.

I'm sure World Leaders know they're on the right track when buttheads throw (figurative) eggs.    George Bush would have been ecstatic when Bob Brown squawked in the Australian Parliament during his address in 2003.   That would have told him his ideology was mainstream Australian as only the rabble barfed up their vitriol.

The same Bob Brown who so opposes George Bush was also quick to rush up and shake his hand so he could get his mug on the telly though - thereby demonstrating the fame over substance style of political lightweights like himself.

Steer well clear of any association, naming or otherwise, unless that is what you are aiming for.   It is certain doom.

Now there's a thought for a name.   'Doom For The Green's' Party - DFTG.   But that gives me an idea for another name.   The 'Liberty Or Lunacy' Party  - LOL.    Sounds like a hoot.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:29am by deepthought »  
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #35 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:17am
 
Deepthought, what is that guy in your avatar doing? I'm hoping it's something to do with golf.

An economy comes first.   Not an environment.

The economy is ultimately dependent on the environment, but not vice versa. It's not possible to put the economy first.

People don't give a fecal matter for a tree if their family is hungry.

It depends what sort of tree it is. You try going into a thrid world country and chopping down their trees and see how far you get. It's when people get hungry that they realise you can't eat money.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #36 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:29am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:17am:
Deepthought, what is that guy in your avatar doing? I'm hoping it's something to do with golf.

An economy comes first.   Not an environment.

The economy is ultimately dependent on the environment, but not vice versa. It's not possible to put the economy first.

People don't give a fecal matter for a tree if their family is hungry.

It depends what sort of tree it is. You try going into a thrid world country and chopping down their trees and see how far you get. It's when people get hungry that they realise you can't eat money.


It's a policewoman (from behind) and she is fiddling about in her back passage for some inexplicable reason.   It is of course possible she has a golf ball lodged in there.

I disagree.   The environment depends on an economy.   You can't buy stuff with inedible branches and leaves.

Third world nations log at an extraordinary rate to get money to buy stuff because they don't have an economy.   They sell their trees to nations with economies.    Take a look at Africa and or the Middle East.    See many trees where all those refugees and desert folk are?

You have to start with a structure that sustains people first, then consider the by product.   If you plan on attempting it the other way around good luck to you.   I'll see you and Bob Brown shaking hands with real leaders some time.   Wink
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #37 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:33am
 
The environment depends on an economy.   You can't buy stuff with inedible branches and leaves.

Those branches do not depend on you being able to buy anything. They are quite happy without the economy.

Third world nations log at an extraordinary rate to get money to buy stuff because they don't have an economy.

This sounds like a generalisation to me. Many of the poorest nations are so poor because they failed ot realise that you cannot place the economy above the environment. Jared Diamond gives a few really good examples in Collapse.

You have to start with a structure that sustains people first, then consider the by product.

The environment is the structure which sustains people. The economy is the by product.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #38 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:54am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:33am:
The environment depends on an economy.   You can't buy stuff with inedible branches and leaves.

Those branches do not depend on you being able to buy anything. They are quite happy without the economy.

Third world nations log at an extraordinary rate to get money to buy stuff because they don't have an economy.

This sounds like a generalisation to me. Many of the poorest nations are so poor because they failed ot realise that you cannot place the economy above the environment. Jared Diamond gives a few really good examples in Collapse.

You have to start with a structure that sustains people first, then consider the by product.

The environment is the structure which sustains people. The economy is the by product.


Jared Diamond's examples show exactly what I'm talking about.   Those societies had no sustainable economies.

So they sold nothing, bought nothing, made nothing (but stone statues or boats) and raped the environment until there was nothing left.

That is what is the result of no economy.    Eventually you just use all your resources.

But they lived (and died) in quite different times from today's global environemt and marketplace.    The nations which built sustainable economies also protected their resources as they knew they needed them for a sustainable economy.

Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #39 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:05am
 
Those societies had no sustainable economies.

Because the economy ultimately depended on the environment. It was nothing inherent to their economy that caused their collapse.

That is what is the result of no economy. Eventually you just use all your resources.

No it isn't. That was not Diamond's conclusion either.

The nations which built sustainable economies also protected their resources as they knew they needed them for a sustainable economy.

When you say resources, you mean the environment don't you?
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Scaly
Ex Member


Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #40 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:19am
 
If we were to go back in time and apply sustainability and the precautionary principle, would we still be mapping out which stones we are allowed to chip pieces off to make a basic tomahawk?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #41 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:25am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:05am:
Those societies had no sustainable economies.

Because the economy ultimately depended on the environment. It was nothing inherent to their economy that caused their collapse.

That is what is the result of no economy. Eventually you just use all your resources.

No it isn't. That was not Diamond's conclusion either.

The nations which built sustainable economies also protected their resources as they knew they needed them for a sustainable economy.

When you say resources, you mean the environment don't you?


Yes I do.  

It was Diamond's conclusion as I recall as he speaks of the desperate times that must have been faced at the end as people starved to death after chopping down all their trees to make boats to plunder more resources.   Once the boats fell apart they had nothing.   With no industry (food production) to sustain them they ate all their resources and perished.

So they had no trees because they had built boats.   They plundered the seas for fish to eat.   As soon as the boat broke they could not build another as they had no trees and they could no longer get produce to eat as it was in the ocean.

Let's say those same people built fish farms.   Instead of chopping down the trees to make innumerable boats they harvested the trees for fibres, branches, blah blah to construct netted areas to hold live fish, and they farmed them.    After they have the farms working they need never build boats as the supply of food is at hand and they are mindful of the need to keep the trees growing to supply the replacement fibres etc to repair netting/fencing.

Now they have an industry which supplies produce (fish) that requires an environment (trees) to keep it functioning.

But the industry (the economy) must come first to justify keeping the environment (trees).   It's pretty simple and only works one way - not in reverse.

But I'm beginning to get the idea you're thinking Greeny and that's not for me.   Nor is it for most Australians.   The polling percentages prove I'm right.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #42 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:33am
 
Let's say those same people built fish farms.

Have you ever seen Easter Island? And it wasn't boat building that caused them to loose all their trees.

It was Diamond's conclusion as I recall as he speaks of the desperate times that must have been faced at the end as people starved to death after chopping down all their trees to make boats to plunder more resources.

That doesn't mean that lack of an economy results in consumption of all your resources. With the exception of small islands, people only ever began to live unsustainably when they tried to feed a large economy.

But the industry (the economy) must come first to justify keeping the environment (trees).

That's absurd. You don't need an economy to justify keeping the trees. It's like you think people are happy to die, but won't tolerate damage to their economy. Diamond gave an example of another island in a similar situation where they did make a conscious choice to live sustainably. It had nothing at all to do with protecting their economy.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #43 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:34am
 
If we were to go back in time and apply sustainability and the precautionary principle, would we still be mapping out which stones we are allowed to chip pieces off to make a basic tomahawk?

No.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Scaly
Ex Member


Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Reply #44 - Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:49am
 
No.

So definitive! Perhaps we'd be struggling to get through the bronze age? No way we'd be anywhere near the industrial revolution.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 14
Send Topic Print