Australian Politics Forum

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Thinking Globally › Socialism

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28

Socialism (Read 28827 times)

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21379 Gender:	Re: Socialism Reply #390 - Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 4:50pm thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 4:34pm: Your wealth is irrelevent to a discusioin about a functional economy in which can prosper. Of course it is relevant. And then that functional economy running MMT which you can't show.
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15585
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #391 - Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:05pm

lee wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 4:44pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 4:31pm:

the CCP doesn't support charity nor the dole; the CCP oversees continuous productivity gains ....but China IS running into problems maintaining full employment - now that Trump is rejecting WTO free-trade rules which resulted in the US's de-industrialization, courtesy of your delusional Neoclassical economics.

Tell that to the Uighurs about being paid for productivity gains. Grin

Uighurs like all Chinese are being replaced by robots (China installed half the world's total last year); the government is currently trying to deal with unemployment across ALL China, now that Trump has thrown a spanner in China's "export driven" model of deveiopment.

Quote:

Which is what I said. They want MORE. Cool

Dummy, you still didn't get it: people always "wan't more" (..even billionaires who seek tax havens...); but in the Keynesian welfare state era (1946-1970s) they weren't voting communist instead of Menzies because they were satisfed with their wages in the "golden age of capitalism" before the Neoclassical "small government" rot gained traction.

Now the majors are having difficulty outpolling ON....

Quote:

The Soc Democrats are centre left, which partially explains their popularity. We will see how it transfers after government. Roll Eyes

Dummy, try asking duck.ai if Sanders or Mamdani are "centre left"....

Quote:

Seeing as he still supports Nut Zero -NO.

(Google AI)

Yes, there is clear majority support for the UK's net zero target, with roughly 63% to 64% of the public backing the 2050 goal, despite a growing political divide and falling a sense of urgency among some groups

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15585
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #392 - Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:20pm

lee wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 4:50pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 4:34pm:

Your wealth is irrelevent to a discussion about a functional economy in which can prosper.

Of course it is relevant.

Why or how is your wealth relevant for people on the mean wage (which has been stagnant for decades?

(google)

Mean wages and living standards in Australia remain heavily constrained by weak productivity growth and persistent inflation, leaving real purchasing power stagnant despite nominal pay adjustments.

Quote:

And then that functional economy running MMT which you can't show. Grin

Dummy: MMT shows a path to a functional economy; but regardless, how do YOU propose to deal with the electorate's revolt against mainstream parties? (...stick your head in the sand, no doubt...)

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21379
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #393 - Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:20pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:05pm:

Ah robots. Well that's the end of full employment. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:05pm:

but in the Keynesian welfare state era (1946-1970s) they weren't voting communist instead of Menzies because they were satisfed with their wages in the "golden age of capitalism" before the Neoclassical "small government" rot gained traction.

Nope. they were more afraid of communism. "reds under the bed". Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:05pm:

f Sanders or Mamdani are "centre left"....

Well neither Mamdami or Sanders- "Zohran Mamdani identifies as a democratic socialist rather than a social democrat."

"Bernie Sanders is not a social democrat in the usual sense (i.e., someone who mainly wants to reform capitalism while keeping it fundamentally in place).

He calls himself a “democratic socialist.”

You keep confusing yourself. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:05pm:

Yes, there is clear majority support for the UK's net zero target, with roughly 63% to 64% of the public backing the 2050 goal, despite a growing political divide and falling a sense of urgency among some groups

Now ask the question about how many Nut Zero public actually support paying for it. Roll Eyes

From AI: "60% of Britons support the UK's net zero target, but there is limited public appetite for the policies needed to achieve it."

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:20pm:

Why or how is your wealth relevant for people on the mean wage (which has been stagnant for decades?

You missed the follow uo statement.

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:20pm:

Mean wages and living standards in Australia remain heavily constrained by weak productivity growth and persistent inflation, leaving real purchasing power stagnant despite nominal pay adjustments.

And that accords with my statement. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:20pm:

MMT shows a path to a functional economy; but regardless, how do YOU propose to deal with the electorate's revolt against mainstream parties? (...stick your head in the sand, no doubt...)

Your assessment means Productivity is both not an issue and an issue. Why is that? Roll Eyes

It doesn't show a path, it is entirely theoretical. Data trumps theory. You can't provide it. Cool

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15585
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #394 - Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm

lee wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 4:48pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 4:45pm:

It can be ignored if it doesn't happen immediately, eg if government spending its own money increases productive output; or eg the c-i-government can reduce inflation by subcontracting the building industry (as required) to rebuild the nation's public-housing stock at no cost to taxpayers, thereby stabilizing/reducing house prices and lowering rents.

Nope. All; it does is kick the can down the road. Cool

How does eliminating a major component of inflation (namely, high mortgages and high rents) plus all the social costs associated with homelessness, "kick the can down the road"?

Quote:

How is Albo's reducing house prices going? People not in the market because of genuine fears that a fall in the market will lead to mortgages exceeding values. It has also not lowered rents. Cool

Correct: when it comes to economics, Albo is Neoclassical dumb**se like you, though - unlike you - he does support social housing - hence the dumbarse Neoclassical solution: borrow money 'off-budget' to take a bet on the stock market to fund the buildout, aka the HAFF. Totally inadequate, and depends on the stock market rising.

(google)

The federal Labor government's Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) is a $10 billion investment program designed to build tens of thousands of social and affordable rental homes across Australia

Quote:

Truly stupid. Grin

How is eliminating a major component of inflation in the CPI "stupid"?

Quote:

From duck.ai "es—all else equal, increasing the money supply tends to devalue a currency because it raises the amount of money relative to goods and services.

"Tends to"....or does? Obviously the duck knows tendencies aren't outcomes.

Quote:

Key intuition:

More money chasing the same goods → prices tend to rise (inflation), so each unit of the currency buys less.

Ignores the supply side, eg more money spent on robots increases output.

Quote:

If that inflation is higher than other countries, your currency often loses value in exchange rates (depreciation) because investors expect a weaker purchasing power going forward.

The Oz treasury can fund a million public housing units (without 'taxpayer money' and without causing inflation) because Oz can supply the labour and materials from domestic sources, indeed the public housing buildout would DECREASE inflation as already explained (by subcontracting the building industry for the required time, thus avoiding competition with the private sector).

Quote:

A useful way to phrase the relationship is:

Money supply ↑ ⇒ expected inflation ↑ ⇒ purchasing power ↓ (and often exchange rate value ↓).

"Expected inflation"....another mainstream piece of nonsense refuted in the linked Michael Roberts' article examing inflation.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1645944963/1485#1497
#1497

Quote:

Caveat (still consistent with the statement): the effect depends on why money supply increases and whether the economy can expand output. If more money corresponds to more real production, inflation/devaluation may be smaller.

Exactly....indeed, not only smaller, but non-existent, when the economy expands output sufficiently to absorb the extra-money supply.

As Micheal Roberts explains: Friedman's formulation MV= PY is an identity, not causation. M= money supply: V is velocity of money: P is the price level, and Y is the economy's output. )

So (in the macro-economy), M can increase without causing inflation if Y increases while price per unit remains constant (or decreases) eg by automating production.

Quote:

That of course does not line up with Australa's decreasing productivity. Cool

Productive capacity and productivity are different, according to types of goods and services being considered: automating BHP's trains in the Pilbera increases productivity, but increasing productive output in the services sector requires a different metric (nurses can't treat twice the number of patients).

(google)
output (capacity) is the total amount produced, while productivity is a ratio measuring how efficiently resources (like time or labor) are used to create that output.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21379
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #395 - Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:58pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

How does eliminating a major component of inflation (namely, high mortgages and high rents) plus all the social costs associated with homelessness, "kick the can down the road"?

You haven't shown anything remotely like that. Merely hopes and wishes. Cool

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

he does support social housing - hence the dumbarse Neoclassical solution: borrow money 'off-budget' to take a bet on the stock market to fund the buildout, aka the HAFF. Totally inadequate, and depends on the stock market rising.

I have never said I don't support social housing. I look at the cost.

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

The federal Labor government's Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) is a $10 billion investment program designed to build tens of thousands of social and affordable rental homes across Australia

Except of course that land as not magically appeared, it is the scarce resource, therefore prices of land must rise. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

How is eliminating a major component of inflation in the CPI "stupid"?

You haven't shown that to be true. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

"Tends to"....or does? Obviously the duck knows tendencies aren't outcomes.

And neither are hypotheses on MMT. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

Ignores the supply side, eg more money spent on robots increases output.

And nowhere is there a cost analysis of the robots' maintenance etc. It also means more people out of work needing government support. Another thing not factored. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

Oh dear. So many misconceptions. Subcontracting? That means there will be no private builders, at all. So the people who can afford housing will be locked out. What would the subcontracting rate be? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

Expected inflation"....another mainstream piece of nonsense refuted in the linked Michael Roberts' article examing inflation.

And of course for you there would never be unexpected inflation. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

.indeed, not only smaller, but non-existent, when the economy expands output sufficiently to absorb the extra-money supply.

Only IF not when. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

So (in the macro-economy), M can increase without causing inflation if Y increases while price per unit remains constant (or decreases) eg by automating production.

Assumes the price remains constant or decreases. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:31pm:

Productive capacity and productivity are different, according to types of goods and services being considered: automating BHP's trains in the Pilbera increases productivity, but increasing productive output in the services sector requires a different metric (nurses can't treat twice the number of patients).

I did say productivity not productive capacity. And you still haven't addressed those put out of work. Roll Eyes

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15585
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #396 - Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm

lee wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 6:20pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 5:05pm:

Ah robots. Well that's the end of full employment. Grin

Not necessarily, there is always usefuil work to be done (though outside of the profit-driven freemarket.

But eventually, maybe - as Musk said..."work will be optional" when robots produce most of the goods we need to prosper.

Quote:

Nope. they were more afraid of communism. "reds under the bed". Roll Eyes

Low knowledge lee: Aussies actually defeated a referendum put by Menzies to outlaw the CPA.

Quote:

Well neither Mamdami or Sanders- "Zohran Mamdani identifies as a democratic socialist rather than a social democrat."

Meaning they are not centre left, like the mainstream US Democrats.

Quote:

"Bernie Sanders is not a social democrat in the usual sense (i.e., someone who mainly wants to reform capitalism while keeping it fundamentally in place).

He calls himself a “democratic socialist.”

OK... soc. dem, or dem. soc; neither Sanders nor Mamdani are centre-left mainstream US Democrats..

Do try to keep up. Just because Trump, playing to his dumb base, calls Mamdani a "communist" doesn't give you an excuse to play dumb.

Quote:

Now ask the question about how many Nut Zero public actually support paying for it. Roll Eyes

From AI: "60% of Britons support the UK's net zero target, but there is limited public appetite for the policies needed to achieve it."

Exactly: the public want net zero without paying increased taxes.

You and they better hope AGW-CO2 is nonsense; but if it's not nonsense, central bankers will finally be forced to reveal how money is created...

Quote:

You missed the follow uo statement.

Mean wages and living standards in Australia remain heavily constrained by weak productivity growth and persistent inflation, leaving real purchasing power stagnant despite nominal pay adjustments.

And that accords with my statement. Roll Eyes

The quote ignores what I already explained about productivity: as economies move from industrial production to services, productivity in various sectors of the economy is affected in different ways, because teachers and nurses can't increase their "output", unlike robots who can produce greater numbers of widgets in automated factories, increasing productivity.

Quote:

Your assessment means Productivity is both not an issue and an issue. Why is that? Roll Eyes

How does my assessment mean that?

Here it is again:

" as economies move from industrial production to services, productivity in various sectors of the economy is affected in different ways, because teachers and nurses can't increase their output, unlike robots who can produce greater numbers of widgets in automated factories".

Quote:

It doesn't show a path, it is entirely theoretical. Data trumps theory. You can't provide it. Cool

Logic trumps ideology.

National Wealth = Resources + Labour + Knowhow, ie "national wealth" is not money which is created out of thin air.

Do try to keep up.

But the question remains: are you content to ignore the public's dis-satifaction with mainstream political parties who can't solve cost of living pressures?

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21379
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #397 - Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 8:29pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm:

Not necessarily, there is always usefuil work to be done (though outside of the profit-driven freemarket.

What a lot of codswallop. What is outside the free market? Volunteering is payable. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm:

s Musk said..."work will be optional" when robots produce most of the goods we need to prosper.

Ah. Musk again. you believe salesmen. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm:

Low knowledge lee: Aussies actually defeated a referendum put by Menzies to outlaw the CPA.

Which is not the same thing. Although your belief in that is kin of cute. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm:

Meaning they are not centre left, like the mainstream US Democrats.

The Democrats are not Centre left. They are more left than centre.

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm:

OK... soc. dem, or dem. soc; neither Sanders nor Mamdani are centre-left mainstream US Democrats..

So you can't differentiate. How sad. But they are more left than centre left. Cool

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm:

Just because Trump, playing to his dumb base, calls Mamdani a "communist" doesn't give you an excuse to play dumb.

So you don't want to look too closely at Mamdani? He merely "self-decribes" himself as not communist.That's telling. Cool

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm:

Logic trumps ideology.

Logic? You don't do logic. You have belief. That is different. Logic doesn't trump data. Cool

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2026 at 7:33pm:

But the question remains: are you content to ignore the public's dis-satifaction with mainstream political parties who can't solve cost of living pressures?

have you any proof that mainstream political parties have ever solved that. Menzies did not. Cool

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15585
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #398 - Aug 6^th, 2026 at 1:10pm

(Raw Story)

Historic 'earthquake' shakes Dems after 'death star' (ie, "mainstream party stooge": see below) fails to thwart progressive: analyst

Abdul El-Sayed's victory in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary has become an "earthquake for the Democratic Party old guard," an analyst reported Wednesday.

Investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein detailed in his Substack how the historic upset was something Democrats hadn't seen since the rise of former President Barack Obama ( (a 'black American).

"This is a massive defeat for the Democratic Party old guard and an affirmation that the new crop of (socialist outsider) renegade candidates are the people’s choice," Klippenstein wrote.

This has stunned the party's leadership.

"Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer — basically the entire Democratic establishment endorsed Haley Stevens, a textbook party stooge.
For her to still lose is a repudiation and humiliation of not just Stevens but the entire political death star behind her," Klippenstein wrote.

He added that the win should be a sign of where the party will head next.

"But the real story here is bigger than El-Sayed," Klippenstein wrote. "It’s that voters were not swayed by an avalanche of big money and big people. Instead, they hoisted a bigger finger than we’ve seen since Barack Obama’s own primary upset in 2008, when he defeated party leader-approved Hillary Clinton. Any media outlet that doesn’t acknowledge that is on the side of big money and big people."

Yes, mainstream centre L and R capitalist parties are headed for disaster, at long last.....
especially bad for Repubs if Trump keeps diverting from his own radical MAGA pollcies eg getting involved in foreign wars.

« Last Edit: Aug 6^th, 2026 at 2:58pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15585
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #399 - Aug 6^th, 2026 at 4:38pm

Abdul El-Sayed explaining his stance on on radio today:

"I'm not confined by definitions of Right or Left; I promote what the people tell me they want eg, medicare for all, and secure affordable housing for all".

Conservative ideologues like lee consider these things to be beyond a government's capacities, even though various governments have delivered them since 1946, either in the keynesian deficit spending era, or in high taxing Scandinavian regimes.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21379
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #400 - Aug 6^th, 2026 at 4:56pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 4:38pm:

"I'm not confined by definitions of Right or Left; I promote what the people tell me they want eg, medicare for all, and secure affordable housing for all".

What people say they want? Until someone mentions paying for it then they don't. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 4:38pm:

Conservative ideologues like lee consider these things to be beyond a government's capacities, even though various governments have delivered them since 1946, either in the keynesian deficit spending era, or in high taxing Scandinavian regimes.

yes Scandinavian countries tend to tax social securities in the mix. I doubt most Australian want higher taxes.

From AI: "It depends on what “social security” means (age pension, disability, unemployment, family payments, health, etc.), and on what kind of tax increase is proposed—but Australia has long-standing public debate rather than a single clear majority view.

What survey/research broadly suggests:

Many Australians support the idea of a strong social safety net, but support for raising taxes specifically to fund more benefits is often weaker and more conditional (for example, tied to targeting need, limiting eligibility, or keeping increases tied to particular programs)."

"Many" is not the same as "most". Wink

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15585
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #401 - Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm

lee wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 4:56pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 4:38pm:

"I'm not confined by definitions of Right or Left; I promote what the people tell me they want eg, medicare for all, and secure affordable housing for all".

What people say they want? Until someone mentions paying for it then they don't. Wink

Your error: a majority of electors recently voted for Mamdani and El Sayed, knowing they intend to raise taxes on billionaires.

Quote:

yes Scandinavian countries tend to tax social securities in the mix.

And in the US it has been shown US billionares are so rich a 5% tax on their wealth could fund provision of the essentials for all.

"social securities in the mix"?

Scandinavins supported paying higher taxes in return for essential public services for all.

Quote:

From AI: "It depends on what “social security” means (age pension, disability, unemployment, family payments, health, etc.), and on what kind of tax increase is proposed—but Australia has long-standing public debate rather than a single clear majority view.

No need to equivocate:

Scandinavians supported paying higher taxes in return for essential public services for all.

Quote:

What survey/research broadly suggests:

Many Australians support the idea of a strong social safety net, but support for raising taxes specifically to fund more benefits is often weaker and more conditional (for example, tied to targeting need, limiting eligibility, or keeping increases tied to particular programs)."

"Many" is not the same as "most". Wink

But the number is approaching levels threatening the viability of mainstream centre L-R parties who follow delusional 'balanced govt budget/low tax' dogma, while Hanson is obfuscating about how she will fund her "battlers".

Quote:

I doubt most Australian want higher taxes

No-one wants higher taxes, but Scandinavians could see the benefits of social cohesion; and Aussies enjoyed essentials for all under Menzies - who had no need to 'balance the budget (like househoids must do) , because he had access to Keynesian deficit spending, rather than being forced to raise taxes as per Thatcher's post Friedman "other people's money" bs.

« Last Edit: Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:20pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21379
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #402 - Aug 6^th, 2026 at 7:43pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm:

a majority of electors recently voted for Mamdani and El Sayed, knowing they intend to raise taxes on billionaires.

Did they all vote Mamdani because of that? Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm:

And in the US it has been shown US billionares are so rich a 5% tax on their wealth could fund provision of the essentials for all.

Is that a once only 5% or 5% per annum? Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm:

Scandinavins supported paying higher taxes in return for essential public services for all.

So how about Australians? Cool

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm:

Scandinavians supported paying higher taxes in return for essential public services for all.

And last I looked Scandinavia is a long way from Australia. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm:

You would hasave to provide statistics for that. Something of which you seem shy. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm:

No-one wants higher taxes, but Scandinavians could see the benefits of social cohesion; and Aussies enjoyed essentials for all under Menzies - who had no need to 'balance the budget (like househoids must do) , because he had access to Keynesian deficit spending, rather than being forced to raise taxes as per Thatcher's post Friedman "other people's money" bs.

So no one wants higher taxes therefore the govenment will provide it for freeeee. Never mind that it devalues the money currently in existence and is inflatinary. Cool

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 15585
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #403 - Aug 12^th, 2026 at 12:34pm

lee wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 7:43pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm:

a majority of electors recently voted for Mamdani and El Sayed, knowing they intend to raise taxes on billionaires.

Did they all vote Mamdani because of that? Wink

Dummy lee; they voted for essential services like housing and medicare for all, funded by a tax on super wealth.

Quote:

Is that a once only 5% or 5% per annum? Wink

Dummy lee can't do hso own research: 5% per annum (note: rents etc are collected by landlords year after year).

Quote:

So how about Australians? Cool

Oz multiculturalism lacks the sense of social cohesion in the Nordic countries. We walk past people living in the streets - an affront to Nordic people.

Quote:

And last I looked Scandinavia is a long way from Australia. Grin

ah... an irrelevant comment from the dumb Conservatve lee who believes "poverty is always with us....deplorable.

Quote:

You would hasave to provide statistics for that. Something of which you seem shy. Wink

Dummy lee, can't read the latest polls.

Quote:

So no one wants higher taxes therefore the govenment will provide it for freeeee.

Indeed government can moblize the nation's resources to ensure delivery of essentials for all.

Quote:

Never mind that it devalues the money currently in existence and is inflatinary. Cool

Dummy lee: resources aren't money which is created out of thin air.

The Friedman monetarist theory of inflation is delusional, and irrelevant for a fair distribution of available resources.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59755
Gender: male

Re: Socialism
Reply #404 - Aug 12^th, 2026 at 2:54pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 6^th, 2026 at 6:02pm:

Your error: a majority of electors recently voted for Mamdani and El Sayed,

Not true at all.

The majority (80 %) did not vote for Mamdani. How so? Voter turnout was uner 40%. Mmdany got under 51% of that. So he got about half of 40% = 20%.

El Sayed only won the Democratic party nomination, not the senate seat.

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page