April 25 ANZAC Day

[RobBright 35]

Am up for some debating - but surely that's what the argument thread is for?

[RobBright 35]

But the trouble with debating on t'web is that people can easily edit their posts to change their point without recourse.

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: RobBright

Am up for some debating - but surely that's what the argument thread is for?

Has any serious issue ever been discussed in the argument thread?

[grungy-gonads 54]

It flippin' well has!

[Go Native 70]

Mantas if you want to talk about irony have a guess when my Birthday is? Yep, Australia Day!

[Mantas 3]

Originally Posted By: Go Native

And believe me the debates I have on this forum are nothing compared to many I have on other forums out there.

Well I guess that makes you a mass debater then.

[Go Native 70]

Well I'm married with a kid, what do you reckon?

[js 0]

Originally Posted By: Jynxx

Originally Posted By: SubZero

Well JX, before sprouting untruths, get your facts straight.

Are you flaming me? You haven't stated any facts at all as far as I'm concerned. You say something. no big deal.

No, not flaming, just pointing out the obvious. It's amazing to see, from your own recollections, that you still see ANZAC Day as some sort of military-appreciating event.

'... think there is something wrong with these cadets and little kids taking a place in the march, in false illusion of pride, not understanding that WAR IS GENOCIDE. The only ones who can be honoured are the ones who were there and the ones who are dead.'

The cadets, and other young people, march out of respect for the people (mainly relatives) who delivered us from certain oppression. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the march who was there to glorify war. It seems you don't appreciate the intelligence of many of todays youth - unlike us (me?) we didn't have the Internet to snap onto a complete historical reference at a whim, getting both sides of the story.

Like everyone on this forum, you're entitle to an opinion, but be prepared for critisim if you try to sell it as a fact.

[mitchpee 10]

Sub Zero you have to be careful about your terms. Genocide does not mean war. Just for example you cannot compare the conflict in Rwanda to the conflict of the US in Afghanistan. It was the intention of Hutus in Rwanda to kill ALL of the Tutsie people and commit an ethnic cleansing. Although very digressed from the main objective and easily preventable in the 90's the US does not look to eradicate the Afghani people.

 

I understand where you are coming from though. I don't think anything ever justifies an initial act of war. Then again I don't see something that ever justifies sanctions where the ones who are hurt are already the poorest with the least political say.

 

I think you are also taking a lot of what Jynxx says out of context. From what I interpret he takes it as a serious way to remember and honor the lives lost, but not to galvanize the country as some sort of great action. It was a war, the lives should be remembered, but we should take away the negatives that impacted this country. IE not to remember that Germany is bad and we are good, but that as a world we have learned greatly from the atrocious ordeal of WW2 and begin our moving forward not as Australians, Americans, Germans, but as a global community striving to never see that sort of hostility again.

 

I am wildly speculating but I think Jynxx is inferring that this sort of military solidarity celebration leads to what happened with the US (I think that is what Jynxx was saying?) and I would agree with him. Nationalism has accounted for some atrocious things in life and shouldn't be used for the purpose of foreign conflicts except in the most dire dire dire of circumstances.

[mitchpee 10]

Originally Posted By: Mantas

Originally Posted By: Mamabear

But for Mantas to blame the immigrant is unfair..

To blame Mantas for blaming the immigrants is unfair. Re read the post. I said it's helping to add pressure on prices.

I disagree with this. I have done a lot of research on inflation and impacts of issues like minimum wage, immigration, unemployment, etc.

Regression after regression. Formula after formula all showed the same thing. Immigration (in developed countries like the US) has such a minimal impact on inflation and currency values alike that it is hardly noticeable in any sort of price indexing like the CPI here. I can't say I have studied Australia in particular, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that it is mostly a preconceived notion helped to give a negative attitude towards immigration...for the most part.

[Mantas 3]

Not here MP. Cashed up Communist party executives ARE buying up property here in increasing numbers. You can't own land in China as far as I know, so our laxed foreign ownership laws allow this to happen for them. I've seen it here in my small home town. A new development of units was largely sold to Chinese and HK er's before they reached the market. The units, which I happened to be interested in, were well within the first home buyers range.

The foreign investors are only one factor driving up prices and I can see how this is used as a tool for anyone with an anti-immigration stance. My comment was more directed about our lazy laws in Oz and the future direction this might take.

[mitchpee 10]

Originally Posted By: Mantas

Not here MP. Cashed up Communist party executives ARE buying up property here in increasing numbers. You can't own land in China as far as I know, so our laxed foreign ownership laws allow this to happen for them. I've seen it here in my small home town. A new development of units was largely sold to Chinese and HK er's before they reached the market. The units, which I happened to be interested in, were well within the first home buyers range.
The foreign investors are only one factor driving up prices and I can see how this is used as a tool for anyone with an anti-immigration stance. My comment was more directed about our lazy laws in Oz and the future direction this might take.

Fair enough, if you are talking about housing prices I have no knowledge of that in Aus so I take a loss by default

[indosnm 0]

Originally Posted By: MitchPee

I disagree with this. I have done a lot of research on inflation and impacts of issues like minimum wage, immigration, unemployment, etc.

What? A uni paper?

[RobBright 35]

OWNED!

[RobBright 35]

Originally Posted By: MitchPee

, etc.

Regression after regression. Formula after formula all showed the same thing. Immigration (in developed countries like the US) has such a minimal impact on inflation and currency values alike that it is hardly noticeable in any sort of price indexing like the CPI here.

Now the way I see it is that immigration increases demand and supply. After all labour is an input to production, but once labour has been paid they turn into consumers, who purchase the goods. As a result, whether inflation rises or falls with immigration depends on the productivity of the immigrants. If we bring in a whole lot of untrained, unproductive workers it will cause inflation. If we bring in workers that have the highest marginal product (so in the places where firms are begging for labour) then it should decrease inflationary pressures.

[Go Native 70]

In places like Australia there are currently still significant shortages of labour in certain industries. The biggest proportion of Australia's migrant intake is the General Skilled Migration program. It is assessed on a points based system on the english and work related skills and qualifications of the applicants. There is also incentives for successful applicants to locate to rural areas where often skills shortages are most accute. This program accounts for close to 70% of the total migrant intake into Australia. A big portion of the remainder is Family migration which is mostly spouses, dependents and parents of migrants with permanent residence. Overall I'd say this system is very good for Australia.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Absolutely.

And those skills required are mainly doctors, nurses and policemen. Wonder why we have a skills shortage in those industry's [read: dripping sarcasm]

[mitchpee 10]

Originally Posted By: RobBright

Originally Posted By: MitchPee

, etc.

Regression after regression. Formula after formula all showed the same thing. Immigration (in developed countries like the US) has such a minimal impact on inflation and currency values alike that it is hardly noticeable in any sort of price indexing like the CPI here.

Now the way I see it is that immigration increases demand and supply. After all labour is an input to production, but once labour has been paid they turn into consumers, who purchase the goods. As a result, whether inflation rises or falls with immigration depends on the productivity of the immigrants. If we bring in a whole lot of untrained, unproductive workers it will cause inflation. If we bring in workers that have the highest marginal product (so in the places where firms are begging for labour) then it should decrease inflationary pressures.

If you consider a couple "uni papers" on the topic and working with a professor on some regressions, then yes I did that, and I was "owned"

The thing is Rob, what you described is a meer short term aspect of immigration. Actually they don't necessarily turn into consumers either, well at least some of them are partial consumers. Some send money back to their relatives. That is the main argument against immigration that I can't and won't defend.

Also you would need a lot of untrained workers to flood the economy to cause any substantial inflation. I mean a LOT, especially for a developed country's economy. The problem with highest marginal product is the term itself cannot be measured. So in real life inflation cannot be determined purely by the immigrants productivity. There are always externalities in anything. The determining factor however is always going to be real wage. That's why something like CPI needs to be looked at before we blame immigrants on prices.

[js 0]

Originally Posted By: MitchPee

Sub Zero you have to be careful about your terms. Genocide does not mean war. Just for example you cannot compare the conflict in Rwanda to the conflict of the US in Afghanistan. It was the intention of Hutus in Rwanda to kill ALL of the Tutsie people and commit an ethnic cleansing. Although very digressed from the main objective and easily preventable in the 90's the US does not look to eradicate the Afghani people.

I understand where you are coming from though. I don't think anything ever justifies an initial act of war. Then again I don't see something that ever justifies sanctions where the ones who are hurt are already the poorest with the least political say.

I think you are also taking a lot of what Jynxx says out of context. From what I interpret he takes it as a serious way to remember and honor the lives lost, but not to galvanize the country as some sort of great action. It was a war, the lives should be remembered, but we should take away the negatives that impacted this country. IE not to remember that Germany is bad and we are good, but that as a world we have learned greatly from the atrocious ordeal of WW2 and begin our moving forward not as Australians, Americans, Germans, but as a global community striving to never see that sort of hostility again.

I am wildly speculating but I think Jynxx is inferring that this sort of military solidarity celebration leads to what happened with the US (I think that is what Jynxx was saying?) and I would agree with him. Nationalism has accounted for some atrocious things in life and shouldn't be used for the purpose of foreign conflicts except in the most dire dire dire of circumstances.

That genocide comment was made by JX - see the quotation marks.

JX was clearly insinuating that ANZAC Day is purely a celebration of militarism and being the victor. This isn't supported in anyway whatsoever - the March, the interviews, etc. I agree with your sentiments regarding Germany, Japan & Italy, though it is somewhat naive - forgive, but never forget.

Sure, if ANZAC Day was a redneck celebration of military solidarity, fair comments, though it is certainly not. There's no real comparison to the celebrations you have in the US - although they commemorate, they seem to focus on nationalism and sometimes militarism, whereas ANZAC Day and Rememberance Day (WW1 Armistice Day) focuses squarely on rememberance and commemorates the sacrifices of the armed forces and civilians during times of war. It's a memorial - simple.

So you can see, that when some git sprouts blatant untruths, they shouldn't be permitted to be posted as if they were fact and go unchallenged.

[js 0]

Originally Posted By: Mamabear

Absolutely.
And those skills required are mainly doctors, nurses and policemen. Wonder why we have a skills shortage in those industry's [read: dripping sarcasm]

Totally agree with your obvious dig at the lack of education opportunities (cost, placement of overseas students, etc). Also wish to add that many of the so-called professionals being brought in are very much sub-standard.

Mitch, it is easy to look at columns of graphs and compare countries, though if you take a geographic look at Australia (try google earth), we are very much an arid country, so the availability of housing and jobs is limited to a very narrow coastal strip, which in some places is affected by severe climate, owned by Aboriginal communities, or is Nationl Park. Not to mention the availability of natural resources to supply a city.

Increasing density is an obvious temporary treatment.

That's the problem we have with illegal immigration - most of the people coming here are NOT refuges, they are paying customers who are knowingly breaching our Federal Laws, and quite a few International ones, to achieve a better lifestyle and not to save their lives - it's economic, not much else. As someone else mentioned, we have no idea of their background because they either come with no papers or purposely dispose of them - suspect from the start.

Racism? What a load of shit. We're probably the most multicultural country on the globe - not perfect, but working our way through it.

[Go Native 70]

I find it interesting this attitude that just because Aus is multicultural that this somehow proves that Aussies couldn't possibly be racist. I mean look at the US, also a very multicultural country, now there's no racism there at all is there? Or look at the UK, no undercurrents of racism against immigrants in that country at all is there? I mean they all eat curry's so how could they be racist?

Clearly a ridiculous argument.

[Mantas 3]

Originally Posted By: SubZero

That's the problem we have with illegal immigration - most of the people coming here are NOT refuges, they are paying customers who are knowingly breaching our Federal Laws, and quite a few International ones, to achieve a better lifestyle and not to save their lives - it's economic, not much else. As someone else mentioned, we have no idea of their background because they either come with no papers or purposely dispose of them - suspect from the start.

The tactics employed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam resulted in their being branded as a terrorist organization in 32 countries, including the United States, India, Australia, Canada and the member nations of the European Union.

No wonder they are fleeing persecution.

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: SubZero

That's the problem we have with illegal immigration - most of the people coming here are NOT refuges, they are paying customers who are knowingly breaching our Federal Laws, and quite a few International ones, to achieve a better lifestyle and not to save their lives - it's economic, not much else. As someone else mentioned, we have no idea of their background because they either come with no papers or purposely dispose of them - suspect from the start.

Care to back that up with figures? What percentage of asylum seekers have their claims rejected?

Didn't the Australian government recently decide to suspend processing all new asylum claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan? A completely inhumane kneejerk reaction to the number of boats this year in response to the racist propaganda and fearmongering by the oposition in my opinion. We are still only talking about an very small amount of people, less than 5,000 per year. It is not a big issue economically. It would barely be an issue at all except unfortauntely politicians use it when pandering to fearful and racist Australians.
To give an indication of the effect poilitical influence can have on decision making in regards to asylum claims it is telling that between 1993 and early 2006, the Refugee Review Tribunal overturned 7885 departmental decisions refusing refugee status. What an absolute prick Howard was and thank god we had an independent tribunal to secure the protection these people needed.

And just for the record the use of terms like 'illegals', 'illegal immigrants' or 'illegal arrivals' when referring to asylum seekers arriving by boat is incorrect, misleading and derogatory. Asylum seekers are not criminals or illegal immigrants. They have not broken any law. Under Australian and international law, a person is permitted to enter Australia for the purpose of seeking asylum, whether by boat or by air. A refugee's claim for asylum has nothing to do with how they arrive in a country, but everything to do with their need for protection.
And we have an obligation as a signatory to international conventions to process their claims regardless of the method of arrival.

The biggest waste to taxpayes money on this issue is the fact we have mandatory detention for all asylum seekers and that we support offshore detension centres so that these evil people can't actually set foot on Australian soil. Would be much cheaper to just let them arrive and process their claims on the mainland. From some figures I found for 2007 is cost $238 per day to hold someone at the Villawood detention centre in Sydney and $1830 per day to hold someone in detention on Christmas Island. Utterly ridiculous isn't it?

[Mantas 3]

OK So tell me why they chose Australia for that protection when they have just by passed a dozen or so other countries on their way to get here? Including Japan, Hong Kong Korea and some of those obcenely wealthy nations in the middle East. All them much closer geographically and much much easier and safer to travel too.

[RobBright 35]

Originally Posted By: Go Native

Would be much cheaper to just let them arrive and process their claims on the mainland. From some figures I found for 2007 is cost $238 per day to hold someone at the Villawood detention centre in Sydney and $1830 per day to hold someone in detention on Christmas Island. Utterly ridiculous isn't it?

But then they could just disappear under the radar if they arrived on the main land?