Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Andrew #1 said:

I’m partisan. No doubt about that. But i dont think Labor is perfect.

Fck mate, anyone that even thinks either party over the last 15+ years deserves a pass mark should not be entering into the debate...

Got to say, giving life membership to Rudd and Gillard on the weekend really took the shine off giving it to Keating at the same time.  The other two aren't even eligible to lick his shoes.  Hopefully this is not a sign of the decisions to come over the next 6 years.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cottoneyes said:

Fck mate, anyone that even thinks either party over the last 15+ years deserves a pass mark should not be entering into the debate...

Got to say, giving life membership to Rudd and Gillard on the weekend really took the shine off giving it to Keating at the same time.  The other two aren't even eligible to lick his shoes.  Hopefully this is not a sign of the decisions to come over the next 6 years.

Agreed, both sides are an absolute disgrace. It's mind boggling how people like Andrew treat it like a footy team, loyally supporting one or the other blindly no matter how incompetent they are.

The only people politicians care about these days are themselves and keeping their job 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, more said:

Wow what a zinger...U comedic talents are wasted chasing ambulances, or is it scavenging off divorces?

Putting sex offenders and drug kingpins in prison actually. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

Putting sex offenders and drug kingpins in prison actually. 

At least u work for the right team

Edited by more
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something I have an issue with.  One Vic pollie has quit the Hinch party to sit as an independent, and she hasn't even been sworn in yet!

Now, I'm the first to say that when we vote we're technically voting for the individual etc.  But part of what that individual is standing for is the policies etc of their party.  I don't think they should be allowed to do this!  A few years ago the person who won my local seat for the LNP immediately defected to the Katter Party.  You just shouldn't be able to do that!  And at the next election he was flogged, even independents beat him.  Typically our seat is a safe lnp seat and has been held by the nats/lnp for like ever.

Don't know what the answer is, bielection maybe, though costly.  But I bet the individuals would get their arses kicked as people would be pissed off so I'm time might curb the habit.

I have to admit though, I enjoy every time a One Nation member quits.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, goughy said:

Now, I'm the first to say that when we vote we're technically voting for the individual etc.  But part of what that individual is standing for is the policies etc of their party.  I don't think they should be allowed to do this!  A few years ago the person who won my local seat for the LNP immediately defected to the Katter Party.  You just shouldn't be able to do that!  And at the next election he was flogged, even independents beat him.  Typically our seat is a safe lnp seat and has been held by the nats/lnp for like ever.

You can imagine how the constituents of New England felt after the 2010 poll then, when their former Nationals member backed a party which had received 9% of the vote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, goughy said:

This is something I have an issue with.  One Vic pollie has quit the Hinch party to sit as an independent, and she hasn't even been sworn in yet!

Now, I'm the first to say that when we vote we're technically voting for the individual etc.  But part of what that individual is standing for is the policies etc of their party.  I don't think they should be allowed to do this!  A few years ago the person who won my local seat for the LNP immediately defected to the Katter Party.  You just shouldn't be able to do that!  And at the next election he was flogged, even independents beat him.  Typically our seat is a safe lnp seat and has been held by the nats/lnp for like ever.

Don't know what the answer is, bielection maybe, though costly.  But I bet the individuals would get their arses kicked as people would be pissed off so I'm time might curb the habit.

I have to admit though, I enjoy every time a One Nation member quits.....

:lol:  Old Tranny "Sputnik" (Glenn Druery)  gets an honorable mention 

 

She told the ABC she was quitting because she did not win the vote to lead the party, despite having more than two decades of political experience in local government.

She also said she did not want to be associated with the so-called "preference whisperer", Glenn Druery, who is the subject of a complaint to police about his dealings with political parties and the harvesting of votes.

"I realised I can't work with Glenn Druery,'' she said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another bites the dust.  Leynhelm, NSW can have you!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/12/2018 at 3:22 AM, roxii said:

:lol:  Old Tranny "Sputnik" (Glenn Druery)  gets an honorable mention 

 

She told the ABC she was quitting because she did not win the vote to lead the party, despite having more than two decades of political experience in local government.

She also said she did not want to be associated with the so-called "preference whisperer", Glenn Druery, who is the subject of a complaint to police about his dealings with political parties and the harvesting of votes.

"I realised I can't work with Glenn Druery,'' she said.

Not even with a crash helmet on?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So leynhelm got into politics by being part of a party known as the Liberal Democrats, which I gather is neither truly liberal or democratic but extreme right wing??  Now it's Fraser Annings turn.....

Apparently he's starting a "Conservative Nationals" party.  Try and trick people into voting for him.  He's from Queensland, it might work! At least the parties name is a closer representation of the truth......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More big issue stuff from The Libs this weekend. You MUST have a citizenship ceremony on Australia Day. NO boardies and things allowed. What a crock. What a petty issue for a federal govt to be focused on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see Labor finally came to their senses and jettisoned Dastiari into a remote jungle, then some stupid TV show is talking about bringing him back in a few weeks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Cottoneyes said:

Good to see Labor finally came to their senses and jettisoned Dastiari into a remote jungle, then some stupid TV show is talking about bringing him back in a few weeks...

After tonight I thankfully won't be in the country to see it!

And speaking of Labor - are they really thinking of:

- Increasing the tax rates to 49% if you earn over 200K

- increasing Super tax to 30% from 15% if you earn over 200K

- Getting rid of negative gearing

- death tax (has been mentioned)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2019 at 6:26 PM, IronmanFoz said:

After tonight I thankfully won't be in the country to see it!

And speaking of Labor - are they really thinking of:

- Increasing the tax rates to 49% if you earn over 200K

- increasing Super tax to 30% from 15% if you earn over 200K

- Getting rid of negative gearing

- death tax (has been mentioned)

“Facts” hey, who needs them.

Here are some actual, ascertainable, factoids:

1. The 49% rate is the sum of 1. The 45% rate plus the 2% Medicare levy (which the Libs tried to move up to 2.5% before backing down last budget) and the 2% budget pair levy which ... the liberals introduced in the 2014 budget and which they only scrapped for the current financial year. The point of difference between labor and the liberals is that labor opposed scrapping the liberals air levy until the budget is back in surplus;

2. Super tax (whether it be at 15% or 30% for high income earners) is already a concessional rate of tax from what would otherwise be paid as tax on income. At the moment the concessional rate of 30% applies to taxable incomes of over $300,000. Labor proposes reducing that threshold to $250,000 - not the $200,000 you state;

3. Labor is not “getting rid of” negative gearing. Existing arrangements are grandfathered. For future property investments, Negative gearing will still apply to the purchases of new builds; and

4. Death taxes “already mentioned”. Lols.

Edited by Andrew #1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/12/2018 at 11:34 AM, Prince said:

or the Rudd handouts during the GFC...

The handouts were part of a two pronged attack on the effects of the GFC, one being  financial stability measures (lowering interest rates and supporting the banks) and the second being a 2 part financial stimulus package.

The first of these was $10.4 billion (which for Australia is around 1 per cent of GDP.)  comprised of $8.7 billion that would flow to pensioners and low-income families in the form of cash bonuses, $1.5 billion to support housing construction, and $187 million for new training places.

The second was a $42 billion stimulus package titled the Nation Building and Jobs Plan predominantly centered on fast tracking infrastructure projects.

Australia's handling of the GFC was considered to be very good financial management (not some loony left free-for-all hand-out) and we got through it far better than the major players UK and USA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

Australia's handling of the GFC was considered to be very good financial management (not some loony left free-for-all hand-out) and we got through it far better than the major players UK and USA.

yeah....pity it has taken only 10 years to pay back....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Pete said:

Australia's handling of the GFC was considered to be very good financial management (not some loony left free-for-all hand-out) and we got through it far better than the major players UK and USA.

We got through it better because we went in better

Sending cheques to dead people and replacing perfectly adequate school halls did little other than create the debt and deficit issue which continues to this day as Prince correctly points out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got through the GFC better because most of our good conditions were from industries tied to China, who also got through the GFC virtually unscathed.  Our trade with China grew almost 16% in the space of a couple of years after the GFC and it was already our largest trading partner.  Our second largest, Japan, also continued to grow pretty much throughout the period too as they had learned a lot of lessons from the Asian crisis of the 90s.  It had little to do with the surplus we had built up, the stimulus package or good economic management by us.  It was primarily good luck and good circumstances.  Neither side of politics deserves too much praise.

China also stimulated the f*@k out of their economy but did so with major infrastructure projects which they continue to benefit from, arguably negating the oft-made justification that the Australian government had to throw cash around on short-term objectives because time was of the essence.  Would we have fallen into a hole without this?  Well I guess it's possible but considering that around 25% of our international trade was with China and Japan then at very least the blow would have been greatly softened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pete said:

The second was a $42 billion stimulus package titled the Nation Building and Jobs Plan predominantly centered on fast tracking infrastructure projects.

Pity we weren't looking at an NBN back then. We'd all have fibre to our homes by now instead of the fustercluck that is now happening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palmer is releasing a video game he thinks will attract younger voters to his party.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife just got this text message from PUP

 

IMG_20190117_110659.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got one too, and on the other day from 'CliveUAP' talking about fast trains for Sydney

A better effort than Mediscare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess the number had to change cause people like my wife blocked the last one.

Maybe we should get a hashtag trending #putUAPlast

The election hasn't even been called yet, it's only gonna get worse! We're not gonna cop it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, goughy said:

The election hasn't even been called yet, it's only gonna get worse! We're not gonna cop it!

My council has just amended their rules for political advertising (council/State & Federal), drastically reducing the number of signs a candidate is allowed, and where they can put them.

I wonder which of the political parties will challenge it in court. (It was the Lib's last time)

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea, although it doesn't take Labor and the Greens into account

#putUAPthirdlast perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, definitely last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Limited said:

I got one too. I couldn't believe it. Are they trying to piss people off?

 

I actually wonder if he even realises he is?  He must though.  This latest one has to be in response to the furore about his previous one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Clive wants to waste his money sending me text messages then he's more than welcome to.  I'd prefer he used it to pay some of the workers entitlements he dodged but I suspect that wouldn't be his second option anyway.

The joke's on him anyway.  Even if his party does get a couple of seats the next parliament is likely to be so fragmented that they'll have no bargaining power anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clive seems like the Aussie version of Trump to me (though thankfully he's not in power).  A strategy based on cliches which appeal to the simple-minded, and has made his way in the world by being a big-mouth bulldozing bully with a trail of corpses in his wake, but no real intelligence, integrity or morals.  He couldn't give a f*ck about the average person on the street.

His policy about having businesses pay tax annually instead of quarterly -  he claims it will boost the economy and jobs.  How the f*ck does that work?  Regardless, the Govt still get the same amount of tax revenue?  I think it would actually send more businesses to the wall because some (many) can't budget well enough to ensure they put the money aside for a full 12mths.  Paying smaller amounts quarterly is less risky.  Cash-flow problems are what send most businesses down the crapper.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our business is tiny (like, really tiny), and years ago we switched to doing our tax/gst etc monthly, as it's easier to come up with.  I know they all say have that separate account and put the GST into that account religiously and don't touch it.  But when you're scrambling and income can be volatile, it's easy to dip into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, goughy said:

Our business is tiny (like, really tiny), and years ago we switched to doing our tax/gst etc monthly, as it's easier to come up with.  I know they all say have that separate account and put the GST into that account religiously and don't touch it.  But when you're scrambling and income can be volatile, it's easy to dip into it.

Exactly Goughy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

His policy about having businesses pay tax annually instead of quarterly -  he claims it will boost the economy and jobs.  How the f*ck does that work?  Regardless, the Govt still get the same amount of tax revenue?  I think it would actually send more businesses to the wall because some (many) can't budget well enough to ensure they put the money aside for a full 12mths.  Paying smaller amounts quarterly is less risky.  Cash-flow problems are what send most businesses down the crapper.

Use of funds - the basis of the financial system

If you wait until the end of the year to pay your tax the money can be invested by you for additional return.  Likewise, the government getting it later is an opportunity cost to them because they can't use that money to pay their debts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Use of funds - the basis of the financial system

If you wait until the end of the year to pay your tax the money can be invested by you for additional return.  Likewise, the government getting it later is an opportunity cost to them because they can't use that money to pay their debts

OK, good point.  Though I guess that creates another problem, if the funds are re-invested in tax deductible items, the tax take overall is reduced, which produces budget problems for the govt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

OK, good point.  Though I guess that creates another problem, if the funds are re-invested in tax deductible items, the tax take overall is reduced, which produces budget problems for the govt.

True.  The idea is though, that businesses investing that money provides additional economic growth, which ultimately helps the budget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know nothing about marketing but an extremely experienced and successful marketing director I train with told me Clive's recent text campaign was sheer genius and has exceeded all expectations.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

I know nothing about marketing but an extremely experienced and successful marketing director I train with told me Clive's recent text campaign was sheer genius and has exceeded all expectations.      

Well, nobody is talking about David Leyonhjelm today I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trickle of Libs and Nats jumping ship to get cushy public sector and resource industry jobs rather then face the upcoming election massacre will become a flood soon I guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And aren't the nats talking about running in some seats against the libs??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the lnp have cost themselves Gilmore at the next election?  I'm guessing it might have been hard to hold anyway, which would be why ScoMo placed someone with a public profile in there???  But with the other side note standing as an independent and some pissed off liberal party members in the area, is the LNP vote gonna now splinter between the two of them?

If MT was too Labor for the LNP, you'd have thought a former president of the ALP would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, goughy said:

Could the lnp have cost themselves Gilmore at the next election? 

As one of the commentators said yesterday, the libs seem to take their right foot out of their mouths and then replace it with their left foots....

for gods sake, just throw Shortpantz the keys to the lodge now and we can all go home and i can go straight to the grieving stage...

 

Edited by Prince
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

Mundine would have to be the only rat prepared to jump onto a sinking ship ...

There's an inconvenient truth buried in there (in a very shallow grave, with a few limbs sticking out) but someone will pull the race card on me if I mention the war 😁.

Hope it backfires on them like a 72 Vee Dub.

Really just proves there are zero degrees of separation between the parties now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/01/2019 at 1:27 PM, Pete said:

The handouts were part of a two pronged attack on the effects of the GFC, one being  financial stability measures (lowering interest rates and supporting the banks) and the second being a 2 part financial stimulus package.

The first of these was $10.4 billion (which for Australia is around 1 per cent of GDP.)  comprised of $8.7 billion that would flow to pensioners and low-income families in the form of cash bonuses, $1.5 billion to support housing construction, and $187 million for new training places.

The second was a $42 billion stimulus package titled the Nation Building and Jobs Plan predominantly centered on fast tracking infrastructure projects.

Australia's handling of the GFC was considered to be very good financial management (not some loony left free-for-all hand-out) and we got through it far better than the major players UK and USA.

This is of course under the assumption that we needed it....... and we didn’t!

And...... just read what Stikman wrote above.  Correct-a-Mondo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

This is of course under the assumption that we needed it....... and we didn’t!

And...... just read what Stikman wrote above.  Correct-a-Mondo!

Except Stikman is wrong. There was a massive gap in both time (about 1 year) and in diversity of impact between the benefits of China’s own stimulus package starting and the effects being felt beneficially in Australia. Doncha did an analysis - providing links to the relevant studies on the issue - about 150 pages ago in this very thread. I couldn’t be arsed repeating that exercise, save to point out that the trades and allied employment in the cities on the eastern seaboard were facing mass redundancies and had no real chance of picking up the windfall of China’s increased demand for resources to fuel its construction stimulus. It may have been different in mineral rich WA, but even there there was a 1 year lag. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real purpose of the $42 billion 'Nation building package' (i.e. replacing perfectly adequate school halls) was propping up the construction industry

Which props up the CFMEU

Which props up the Labor party

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Andrew #1 said:

Except Stikman is wrong. . Doncha did an analysis - providing links to the relevant studies on the issue - 

No disrespect but any idiot cut put a link into a thread to back up a claim - even me! Plus the investment bank I worked for also benefited from the GFC and said Australia didn’t need stimulus. 

Anyhow.... here’s a link and then pasted in full:

http://www.taxpayers.org.au/factcheck_did_kevin_save_us_from_the_gfc

There are many lies being spread this election season, but none more galling than the claim by Prime Minister Rudd that he "saved" us from the Global Financial Crisis.

Sadly, it seems many Australians still believe that Kevin throwing $80 billion dollars away, and spending us deep into debt, was a good thing. To combat this, we have prepared a short fact sheet detailing the myths and facts about the so-called stimulus.

Every point is researched meticulously, supported by hard data, and has been fact checked by a number of professional economists. I would encourage you to forward this to all your contacts, as we must get the truth out.

Here are the myths and here are the facts:

MYTH: Australia only escaped the “Global Financial Crisis” because of Kevin Rudd

FACT: Australia’s escaped relatively unscathed from the so-called “Global Financial Crisis” due to the legacy of the Howard Government leaving strong budget surpluses and eliminating the debt - Australia had no net debt federally, and, according to the IMF, some of the lowest gross debt in the world. Furthermore, the Howard government's reforms to industrial relations ensured a flexible labour market and increase productivity. This – combined with some prudent monetary policy (the lowering of relatively-high interest rates by the Reserve Bank giving Australians a higher disposable income, thereby boosting consumption)  and the strength of Australian banks – is what spared us.

MYTH: Government Spending can stimulate an economy

FACT: Academic research overwhelmingly finds that the exact opposite is true: government spending makes a poor economy worse. There has been no case in history where a country has spent itself out of a recession. Here’s a great 3 minute video summarising why.  Dr Julie Novak found that  in Australia, “an increase in government size by ten percentage points is associated with a lower annual GDP per capita growth rate of between 1.2 and 2.5 percentage points”.  Empirical evidence proves that the only way to boost an economy is through tax cuts – instead, Kevin Rudd did the exact opposite

MYTH: Countries who cut spending did worse between 2008-2013 than those who increased spending

FACT: In every country where governments cut spending, the economy started to boomEstonia is a good example of this,  and even  , Sweden – the darling country of the left! - slashed spending which resulted in an “economic miracle”. Other examples are numerous.

The facts speak for themselves:

Stimulus_Data.jpg
MYTH: The Stimulus helped save and create jobs

FACT: Labor’s cooked the books! There are now 350,000 people receiving unemployment benefits who are classified as “non-jobseekers”, meaning they are not required to work and don’t come up in the unemployment figures. In fact, a conservative estimate by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the number of people without jobs went up by 222,000 between December 2007 and July 2013! Treasury didn’t even bother to do proper modeling, but a peer review paper by John Humphreys, our Deputy Director, has shown that even using the Treasury’s own approach, the stimulus directly cost 30,000 jobs. To make matters worse, productivity also has plummeted under the Labor Government due to their winding back our industrial relations system back to the 1960's.

MYTH: The Stimulus Boosted Consumption

FACT: Detailed academic analysis has shown that Kevin Rudd’s “Stimulus: had – NO effect household non-durable consumption. None.  In fact, even the Australian Treasury found that Kevin Rudd’s $900 cheques  equaled only $1 of economic activity – that’s right, $1.

MYTH: The alternatives [to the stimulus packages] were to do nothing or, worse, effectively replicate the Premiers' Plan of 1931 when governments cut expenditure, thereby compounding the problems created by a private sector already in retreat. The result, of course, was an economic rout, appalling unemployment and a decade of negligible growth through the 1930s” – Kevin Rudd, 2009

FACT: Despite what our left-wing high school syllabuses may say, it is a matter of historical fact that the Premier’s Plan was a success – and saved Australia. I know this is difficult for many people to accept - so steeped is the left wing myth in our culture - but the facts speak for themselves. In the United States, where President Hoover and then FDR increased spending, and the economy went into a tailspin, after the premier’s plan, the Australian economy sharply recovered: GDP went up, and unemployment started to rapidly fall. No wonder that in the United States Henry Morgenthau  – FDR’s very own Treasury admitted “we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . I say, after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot.” Even the icon of the left, Lord Maynard Keynes, admitted that “the Premiers’ Plan saved the economic structure of Australia”

MYTH: The stimulus packages – which totaled a staggering $79.1 billion – were well spent. 

FACT: Can anyone really claim that ‘home insulation’ can restart an economy? Or that tearing down one school hall to build another boosts productivity? Examples of waste are endless: An outback school with one student is among nine tiny schools handed $2.25 million in federal grants to build new halls, libraries and classrooms, even though they face closure. Mulgildie State School west of Bundaberg received $250,000 to build a basic 60sq m shed, after receiving a $29,000 quote from a local shed builder for a similar structure. An undercover playground with concrete floors and no doors costs $1.8 million under the Rudd Government’s schools stimulus funding,

MYTH: Labor is a “low taxing” government

FACT: Labor has increased taxes a staggering forty three times. That's right - forty three. Should we all be paying the price for their mistakes?

We are a non-partisan taxpayer advocacy group, and I will never dream of intending to influence your vote, but on this particular matter, the facts speak for themselves.

Kevin Rudd's policies - according to every serious expert - were destructive, damaging, and are destroying our economy. They didn't "save" our economy - instead, they took us to the bring of ruin.

This saturday, let's make sure everyone is aware of the facts.

UPDATE: As you might know, we run an intensive economic education program for students to counter the left-wing indoctrination they receive at universities. For more detail on the points outlined in this email, I would encourage you to read a recent presentation made by Professor Sinclair Davidson from RMIT that you can download HERE

UPDATE 2: I neglected to mention one other relevant Myth. Treasury claimed in a graph that was widely circulated that an OECD analysis showed Australia's stimulus worked. The problem with this is - they fudged the numbers, and specifically excluded a number of countries just to make the data fit their claim. The full dataset showed the stimulus had no statistically significant effect. They were later forced to withdraw the graph. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economists are wrong about nearly everything, mainly due to using models and techniques that are a poor fit for the problems they are trying to analyse and solve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

Economists are wrong about nearly everything, mainly due to using models and techniques that are a poor fit for the problems they are trying to analyse and solve

And yet we are supposed to trust climate scientists who have historically been wrong about nearly everything mainly due to using models and techniques that are a poor fit for the problems they are trying to analyse and solve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...