duncan (the other one)

Members
  • Content Count

    5,502
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

669 F'n Saint

About duncan (the other one)

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Siderney

Recent Profile Visitors

11,761 profile views
  1. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    So I guess all those billions of people in third world don't matter in your bubble? Which brings me nicely to this: The economic impact on the first world is having, and will have for years, a direct (through trade), and indirect (through aid) impact on third world economies. How are you going to count those lives?
  2. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    oh dear -- and again you miss the point. Save lives now at what cost in lives of the future? Who will go back and count the number of lives lost in subsequent years ?
  3. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    thank you - at least you acknowledge there's a line somewhere, however hard it is to determine, where we need to trade off 'lives now' vs. 'lives later'. We are arguing over where that line lies. The remainder of the responses above seem to think we should have gone even further to save the 100-odd people who have died from Covid in Oz, regardless of future impacts
  4. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    so do you, or do you not, agree that we should save every life at any potential cost?
  5. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    bullshit. You don't get it. Do you agree that we cannot save every life "at any cost" ? If you do, then the discussion is where is the line - and I am arguing we've completely over-egged it. You are about as believable as the premier of Qld. claiming she's saved 30 thousand lives.
  6. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    firstly, its not my data, nor my graph. again, read the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve Secondly, I think you'll find the curve fit has very little to do with the point its making, which is that increasing GDP per capita is strongly correlated with life expectancy. Refute the point it is making, not the weeds hiding in the undergrowth.
  7. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    You wrote: "The last article penned by this octagerian whack-job was yesterday. You may recognise it. "Orwellian future may be closer´╗┐ than we think" - It is in no one's interest that 72% of workers are dependent on the Government´╗┐." - Maurice Newman The Australian 17 May 2020." Would that be two days after Adam Creighton's piece was published on the 15th? Maybe you can follow your own advice and provide a link to, or text of, Newman's piece which shows he wasn't citing his colleague ? Oh - and "The conversation" - pulease. They're so independent and broad minded they won't tolerate anyone arguing the narrative: https://theconversation.com/climate-change-deniers-are-dangerous-they-dont-deserve-a-place-on-our-site-123164
  8. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    I have to keep explaining things to people like you.. the goalposts are not moving, the depth of explanation is. If you don't understand how a country generates wealth, then that's your problem.
  9. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    what the fuck is dubious about it ? Its called data. Refute the data or fuck off.
  10. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    fuck off, its not Newman. Newman is citing the article I did. Address the point, rather than just character assassinating.
  11. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    1. Article referenced: see here. Paywall, I can't get to it, under "the real story behind jobs data": https://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Adam+Creighton 2. I concur with the author's headline. 72% of the working population is paid by the government (taxpayer debt) in some form or other. next?
  12. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    Ok.. let's do a fact check on available stats. Really.. stay with me. ABS Apr 2020 labour force: https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0 Employed People: 12.4M Unemployed: 0.8M Government Employees: 2.04M BUT - last month, 600k people left employment (lost their jobs), but only 100k signed up for jobseeker. So that's another 0.5M Jobkeeper numbers ~6M: https://treasury.gov.au/coronavirus/jobkeeper, https://www.pm.gov.au/media/130-billion-jobkeeper-payment-keep-australians-job So we have: 2.05 + 0.8 + 0.5 + 6 = 9.35M 9.35/13.2 = 76% of the the labour force being paid or partially paid by the government, or not available for work if we remove the 0.5M unemployed but not on the dole, its 67% I don't have access to the entire text of the Oz article, so I can't check against the headline claim. But its pretty bloody close to 72%.
  13. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    given we are talking about balancing a national budget, yes. Here's a hint - one of their main sources of income is taxing imports and exports.
  14. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    maybe you can list the "goods and services" for which the government receives foreign income?
  15. duncan (the other one)

    Aussie Government blow it (Again)

    how about not being invaded by someone ? Maintaining the rule of law and defense are probably the two most basic functions of government.