Skeptic Project

I'm not sure emulating Australia is a good idea, they treat the aborigines pretty poorly.

So you're admitting that your perspective is based upon one metric rather than the total universe used by trained experts in the field of global economics? Because a standard of living is actually not the same as wealth nationally nor is it a sign of prestige in international politics. Even Liberal Institutionalist and Constructivist theorists in the field of IR will point that out. And that was the original point to begin with. Being tied with Norway in HDI doesn't mean there is a translatable or measurable signifier in terms of political clout of capital. People in the US aren't looking to Australia for what to do economically (rightly or wrongly) because Australian domestic policies are not envied by people in the US.

by "the original point" i mean my original point. The Original Point was entirely different.

Oh c'mon be somewhat fair. Australia is the only advanced economy that grew during the GFC. That's a pretty good indication of stability, perhaps not the level of stability that I suggested above but it still says a lot.

No, I'm not saying that I base my conclusions on one piece of data (being the HDI) but what I am saying is that just because your economy is the biggest doesn't mean that it's the best one to live in. Though, I do accept your point when you say "People in the US aren't looking to Australia for what to do economically (rightly or wrongly) because Australian domestic policies are not envied by people in the US." In reality you're quite right.

"That will have to be a variable change that wont likely start with one country doing the "right thing" but more a product of dynamic domestic development on a case by case basis (though some partnerships will have more weight like the EU). "
Well, yes, probably. In Australia for example, a large part of our argument -for- a carbon tax is for people to look at the ~32 other examples of them in other places around the world and since you reference California (it being the 5th largest economy in the world) - well, there's a good example of an ETS/CTS.
The argument over here being that, if these advanced economies are doing it then 'why not us?'.

I had to look back just now to remember why this became a carbon tax debate. *lol*

Well they got an average of 15% of the vote at the last Federal Election in August (http://greens.org.au/content/election-results), which will leave them with the Balance of Power in the Senate (Upper House) from July when the new Senate first sits. And of course holding the Balance of Power makes you fairly powerful as a party.

And the current Labor government would not have been able to form (http://greens.org.au/greens_labor_deal) without entering into a coalition with the Greens (and a few independents).

Do you guys have Balance of Power in the US? In Australia it's like one of the most powerful positions a party can hold. No law can be passed without those who hold that balance consenting to it.

It doesn't matter if you're "fringe" if you can reject any law from being passed at a federal level whenever you want. And I mean their vote doubled by almost a million people between the 2007 and the 2010 election. Pretty big deal.

Labor's primary vote is collapsing right now because of the Greens, and to a much lesser extent the Liberal party.

For reference see Newspoll, note the Primary Vote because that's the poll that counts most here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs

Oh, well you do have a point worth noting there. But I do think it's also worth noting that their primary vote is increasing quicker than any other party (almost 50% quicker than the Liberal parties'), though the Greens do need to double that primary vote before they're undeniably not fringe. That will have a good chance of happening if Gillard's Prime Ministership fails (and it's not going too well at the moment) and if Tony Abbott becomes PM. I'm almost 100% certain if that guy ever gets the chance to lead this country he'll do a very very bad job. I'm almost tempted to vote for him next election in the hope he does do a really bad job because it'll destroy conservative Australia's only reason-to-get-elected-mantra: 'good economic managers'.

I would add personal opinion, though, that most Australians don't understand basic policies at all and vote based on political advertisement - and that's why we have traditionally been two-party because most people see which party you support as being similar to which football team you support (i.e., handed down to you by your family) or if not that they just go with the one that runs the better fear campaign against the other and apparently that makes them "moderates" because they're swayed from time-to-time.

Australia's politics will be pretty sucky until the Baby Boomers and older generations in general are gone, though.

And frankly, to summarise the above: I don't care what the majority is willing to support, because unfortunately the majority are all too often worth about as much time as it takes to throw an empty coffee cup in the bin. The task is in convincing, not altering to please.

Oh god, I knew someone would bring me coming back up but I expected it to be like the first response to this thread. I wanted to come back to satisfy Matt since he said he "knew" I'd come back. So now he's right.

And if you're saying I'm "wrong" about the majority of people in Aus, well, honey, you don't live here. People joke about America being "stupid" here but most Aussies are just as bad if not worse.

Well, you're right too! Pat yourself on the back.

Now if that's ("Why are you so obsessed with Matt liking you?") not words in my mouth I don't know what is.

I confused yours and Matt's words. Whatever.

And honestly my integrity isn't threatened by you calling me "more wrong".

I'm not gonna reply to this thread from here-on-in because it's gonna turn into another "you're wrong", "no i'm not", "yes you are" type thread.

@Beauty Killer You just responded to this thread, you failed to follow through with your words. How can you mistake me for Matt you wanted Matt to say that he wanted you back and value his opinions and approval (wishful thinking). You left CS because of Matt and now you come back and say you did it to meet Matt's expectations because you said "I wanted to come back to satisfy Matt since he said he "knew" I'd come back. So now he's right." . In my opinion Beauty Killer is obsessed with getting Matt's approval.

http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/so/page/2?replies=49#post-33727

^ In my opinion I think you are obsessed and want Matt's approval very very much. You left because of Matt and you thought Matt was the one wanting you back so you were trying to meet his expectations.

I stopped reading your post after what I quoted above. Soz.

I can't take your word on that because of your history and because you just said you wouldn't be posting in this thread yet you keep posting inside of it (Pretty Please).

So you are more wrong and don't keep your word. Not to say anybody can count on your word to begin with. So how's the plastic surgery going?

I've missed seeing your Marilyn Manson avatar Brenton.