Q. wrote:Who gives a shit anyway. Click bait article.
Well that applies to about 90% of online articles.
by stan » Sun Dec 14, 2014 8:32 am
Q. wrote:Who gives a shit anyway. Click bait article.
by Q. » Sun Dec 14, 2014 10:42 am
Bully wrote:am sure if julia was still PM or billy boy was PM then there would be an outrage....
by Bully » Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:06 am
by stan » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:16 am
by bennymacca » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:17 am
by mighty_tiger_79 » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:29 am
by stan » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:15 am
bennymacca wrote:The thing I don't like about cutting the aid budget is the implication that all of our problems are more important than the rest of the worlds. I would rather see us keep a little more debt if it means we can do our part as a global citizen and help some other people out that need that money far more than we do
by Q. » Mon Dec 15, 2014 10:07 am
by Psyber » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:33 pm
Q. wrote:We're in a better place than most countries. Cutting aid by this much is embarrassing on the world stage.
by Q. » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:42 pm
by bennymacca » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:53 pm
Psyber wrote:Q. wrote:We're in a better place than most countries. Cutting aid by this much is embarrassing on the world stage.
Share the wealth and in the end all be equally poor in an overpopulated world gradually exhausting its resources, particularly water and food, as we can already see happening.
A nice ideal, but in the end self-preservation has a place if all can't be saved - and I think we passed the point where all could be saved decades ago. Once we have done what is needed to dig ourselves out of the present debt prison, we can look again at what we can do to help mitigate the suffering elsewhere, but it is limited, a mitigation not a cure. Anybody who has ever watched a bacterial colony grow expand and collapse, as the resources in the Petri dish run out, knows how a closed environment works.
by Psyber » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:18 am
Q. wrote:Then you would have to be against exploiting these countries for resources and labour if you wish to be self sufficient.
We aren't bacteria colony.
by stan » Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:18 pm
Q. wrote:We're in a better place than most countries. Cutting aid by this much is embarrassing on the world stage.
by mighty_tiger_79 » Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:30 pm
by Q. » Tue Dec 16, 2014 3:45 pm
Psyber wrote:Q. wrote:Then you would have to be against exploiting these countries for resources and labour if you wish to be self sufficient.
We aren't bacteria colony.
1. Against "exploiting" yes, but I support helping them develop their resources and technology through shared enterprise.
2. The principles of crowding and resource depletion work much the same in all species. Bacteria are simply a basic example not complicated by consciousness and acts of violence. In more advanced species with consciousness the increased crowding leads to increased violence - most of those studies have been done with rats, which as a species seems to behave much like humans, but which tolerate crowding somewhat better than we do.
(That's why I also oppose "high density living" being touted by developers and their politician mates.)
by bennymacca » Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:12 pm
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I believe if we can get our act together financially, who knows, in the future we may be able to offer more in the way of foreign aid than we would if we kept going at our current rates
by Psyber » Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:28 pm
Q. wrote:Psyber wrote:Q. wrote:Then you would have to be against exploiting these countries for resources and labour if you wish to be self sufficient.
We aren't bacteria colony.
1. Against "exploiting" yes, but I support helping them develop their resources and technology through shared enterprise.
2. The principles of crowding and resource depletion work much the same in all species. Bacteria are simply a basic example not complicated by consciousness and acts of violence. In more advanced species with consciousness the increased crowding leads to increased violence - most of those studies have been done with rats, which as a species seems to behave much like humans, but which tolerate crowding somewhat better than we do.
(That's why I also oppose "high density living" being touted by developers and their politician mates.)
We're capable of innovation and adaptation unlike bacteria. We also have a conscience.
by Psyber » Tue Dec 16, 2014 5:36 pm
bennymacca wrote:And when are we "rich enough"?mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I believe if we can get our act together financially, who knows, in the future we may be able to offer more in the way of foreign aid than we would if we kept going at our current rates
We are currently 14th in GDP per capita 19th overall (both in PPP terms)
We have 11% net government debt as a percentage of GDP, compared with 82% in the UK and 87% in the US and 35% in Canada (as examples)
We are second in the world in human development index, which measures standard of living, behind Norway.
We have a 6.5% unemployment rate which is also one of the best in the world, and comparable with those countries mentioned above.
So I say again, how exactly are we doing so badly that we now can't afford to give 0.3% of our GDP to help out other countries?
by dedja » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:25 pm
by bennymacca » Tue Dec 16, 2014 7:28 pm
Q. wrote:We're capable of innovation and adaptation unlike bacteria. We also have a conscience.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |