Best products from r/australia

I am from American and spent 6 weeks traveling Australia last year for fun and I got to see the entire east coast from the Daintree Rainforest to Melbourne.

One HUGE difference that I had the most problems with were airline restrictions. Luggage flying within Australia can only weigh 23kg (50lbs) and carry-ons have to weight less (I think like 10kg.) They certainly weigh your check-in and have the right to weigh your carry on. Every kilo you are over in weight, you have to pay something like $10-15. On my flight over from the states, my bag could weigh some ridiculous amount but my flights within Australia, the bags had to weight a lot less. I threw away or gave away absolutely every item that I did not need or couldn't replace for my last domestic flight before I flew internationally. I still ended up paying some for my bag weighing too much. I crammed as much as I could into my carry on and just prayed they wouldn't weigh it. They didn't. But as I got on the plane, the flight attendant eyed my bag and asked if she could hold it to see how heavy it way. I could tell she was thinking of having it officially weighed.

For the electricity, when I got to Australia I found a very cheap adapter in a post office that allowed me to plug my ipod into an Australian socket to charge. It didn't convert the voltage so it could have fried my ipod. But it didn't.

I would follow other people's advice and travel/work. Many farmers are always looking for work. People I met along the way said they were able to work for a month or two and then take nice vacations and travel. Plus, if you work as a harvester for 3 months (I think) you can extend your visa for another year.

Get a Bank of America account before you go and put your money in it. A major bank, Westpac, is partnered with BOA so you will get better exchange rates when you take money out of ATMs. I don't know how it is now, but last year for every $500 Australian I took out of an ATM, it withdrew about $400 American from my account.

There are certain things you should do once you get there before you start actually working. Like get the Australian equivalent of a SSN. Otherwise, your paychecks will be taxed about 50%.

Hostels in Australia were really nice and clean. Everyone I went to provided sheets and a blanket. I made a sleep sack before I left just to have that extra layer or cleanliness. I included a built in pocket so I could sleep with my money and ipod where someone wouldn't be able to steal it. http://www.ehow.com/how_5515194_make-sleep-sack.html I never had any problems with safety in a hostel. That being said, I didn't carry a laptop or anything expensive with me. Also, many hostels will give you a cheaper rate if you rent by the week instead of by the night. So if you know you are going to be somewhere for at least a week, pay by the week.

You don't need a computer. There are cheap netcafes everywhere. Even in small little towns, one of the shops will have a computer that you can use for a small fee.

Another bigger-ish change is the cost of food. Food is more expensive and there is not as wide a selection in grocery stores. Carry around a water bottle, too. Drink sizes are A LOT smaller and there is no such thing as a free refill on a soda.

A good travel guide is must. I used http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Go-Australia-10th-Inc/dp/0312385757/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1278728530&sr=1-1 because it focused on some of the cheaper options out there.

I flew United internationally because it was the cheapest ($1000 roundtrip from Washington Dulles to Sydney.) However, people I spoke with who flew Quantas internationally seemed to have a much easier 14 hour flight from CA to AUS (There were individual TVs just like jetblue.) To bring the cost of your flight down, try to fly out of a major city to a major city. It might be cheaper to drive to Atlanta and fly from there than fly from Orlando. It is also probably cheaper to fly to Sydney then arrange to fly domestically within Australia to your final destination. The bonus of that is also if you have a roundtrip ticket, you can travel around and make your way back to Sydney instead of having to go back to the Gold Coast first. It gives you a lot more flexibility.

If I ever make it back to Australia, I would break up the flight with a stop in Hawaii or Tahiti. From the time I left my home near D.C. to the time I arrived in Cairns, I had been traveling 36 hours. (Surprise bonus, the flight home over the Pacific was only 12 hours due to winds helping out.)

You and your friends are in for a great adventure. Minimum wage there is a lot higher than here so as long as you aren't buying expensive items, you should be able to work a little, travel a little. I would recommend going with some money saved up for your initial expenses. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to arrive with 1,000 or 2,000 each. You'll also want to budget a few days to get over your jet lag and swollen legs.

If you have some money (not sure of your budget), I'd do a tour of the country at some point. I did a 2 week Contiki tour and it was a great decisions. I saw a lot with very little effort on my part. (I recommend the Reefs and Rainforest.)

Have a great time!

My favorite places were the Daintree Rainforest (but there is very little work up there) and Melbourne. If you make it to Melbourne, make sure you take a tour or drive yourself along the Great Ocean Road. I like Cairns but it was small. Surfers Paradise was a little too much like an American city. Do at least a week in Sydney.

>>Sure, except there is not a finite level of wealth in the real world, nor is wealth gained by arbitrary or random means.

>Not sure what world you are living in, but in mine there is a finite amount of food, land, money, gold, trees, oil, iphones. How do you think the laws of supply and demand work?

In a closed system, with zero economic growth, I would agree with you. But the fact is, we are nowhere close to fulfilling our potential in wealth and technology. When somebody makes money, it's because they have found a way to generate wealth, not because they steal it from anyone else.

>Wealth is not gained by arbitrary or random means? Really? Lets tell the kid who was born in Congo that he really failed at picking his parents. Or an example closer to home - when you wanted to start your first telecommunications company, did your parents put up a few million bucks in venture capital for you as happened with Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer?

The overwhelming majority of millionaires today came from middle-class backgrounds. What's the point of bringing strawmen arguments into this? Being born rich helps, but not as much as you might think. Rarely does wealth last longer than 3 generations - a phenomenon known as "rags to riches to rags". As for luck, working hard helps. From WSJ:

" His study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure."

>Ohhh, I see where you're going with this. In Libertarian fantasy land wealth is allocated by hard work, and chance plays a very marginal role. Capital and inherited wealth pale against the billion dollar earning power of a hard working primary school teacher! In reality, labour does not out earn capital.

Again, most wealthy people came from middle class backgrounds. Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, to back up your claim that a majority of rich people are there because they inherited their wealth?

>>Why are countries with free markets so wealthy? Why do countries like HK, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan have such a strong middle class?

>Because for one, they aren't free market economies. Most of their growth was led by their governments. Singapore is basically a technocratic dictatorship ruled by one family - perhaps you're familiar with Singtel, owner of Optus or Singapore Airlines, both controlled by government investment corporation Temasek?

I agree that Singapore is an autocracy, but it doesn't mean it's not free market. Historically these countries have had the lowest government intervention of any. To claim that they're not free markets are laughable. For christ's sake, for most of Hong Kong's history it never had any public education, healthcare, or transport. It doesn't even have a central bank! Seriously man, I'm more than happy to have a debate with you, but let's at least agree on the obvious - the Asian tigers were (and still are) most definitely free markets.

>Korea is run by an oligarchy of family owned conglomerates called "Chaebols" - Samsung, LG, Hyundai, all of the drivers of their economy are too-big-to-fail and heavily state supported.

This is anecdotal evidence. I'm not claiming these areas have no government interference, merely that they are free markets. The best measure of this is their government spending as a % of GDP.

>Hong Kong and Taiwan were able to profit from proximity and cultural ties to China to build their economies.

Since when does geographical proximity guarantee wealth? This is not an argument in any way.

>And China's decades long double digit economic growth model wasn't thanks to the free market either. They call it "State Capitalism", which is a fancy way of saying fascism.

I wouldn't call China's growth anything exciting. They're growing slower than the Asian tigers, and there's no guarantee they'll break through the middle income trap.

>>Again, evidence and history does not support your claims.

>Yes it does. Most industries in market economies start out fiercely competitive but ultimately merge into an oligarchy if not strictly regulated by the government.

>6 companies control 90% of the USA's media, down from 50 in 1983.

>Since 1990, 37 of the USA's big banks merged to become just 4 too-big-to-fail megabanks.

I wouldn't call 4 banks an oligarchy. That's economies of scale. Do you have any evidence to suggest they are colluding?

>This process happens even faster in a small economy like Australia's, where we have been stuck with an cartel of 4 too-big-to-fail banks for a very long time now.

Again...4 companies is not an oligopoly.

>You need to acquaint yourself with the basics of how markets work, and how unregulated markets inevitably become monopolistic. You can start with "Wealth of Nations" by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.

Thanks for the advice. I guess my 4 years of economics study (with honours) at a top university was a massive waste of time.

For a start, me and my mates don't see a more progressive future (the vision you outlined) as a better one in most aspects of our life for us or the average Australian.


Let's go through the issues that you have raised.


0. "It's well known that wealth and income inequality have been spiralling out of control."
My main thought is that it can be fixed but your policies are not the way to go and you ought to read this book about reducing corruption / political favours in Australia, it basically sums up my feelings on the issue and shows how to reduce inequality in a fair way by eliminating the "Game of Mates" rather than by just taxing normal people as you suggest. https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/0648061108/ref=cm_cr_ryp_prd_ttl_sol_0

1. "Property prices remain incredibly high." This is only in Sydney and Melbourne, and prices are actually starting to decrease now in Sydney. Even in Brisbane, the 3rd largest city you can buy a house for a reasonable amount (say 400K). Also somewhat related to the next point, if we stop wasting so much money on education we can reduce stamp duty and other state / federal taxes which will allow people to afford homes easier. This is an affordability problem, we need to find ways to allow people to EARN more and KEEP more by paying less tax so they can afford homes. Removing negative gearing and cap gains tax actually will have minimal impact as studies have shown.
   
   
   
2. "Education and healthcare funding is not keeping up with demand."
   Lets start with education spending. Similar to the USA, per capita education spending has massively increased with student results remaining stagnant. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/. Empirical evidence is showing us that increased spending is NOT the answer, and actually paradoxically works to increase income inequality by subsidizing the education of people who will already do well, and by wasting the time of those that actually should NOT go to university for example (see all those with $50000 in debt and no relevant jobs). To reduce inequality we actually need LESS education and MORE work. A thoroughly researched logical and empirical argument of this is set out in this book https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/dp/0691174652.
   I don't know much about healthcare, but would assume that Labor has the advantage on this.
   
   
   
3. "We have absurd energy prices and yet nobody wants to pull back from coal and gas."
   Let me tell you that this argument does not make logical or economic sense. Having coal and gas gives us MORE options not LESS options. We can use coal/gas where it is cheaper, and then solar/wind/storage where that is cheaper. Limiting your options does not make your decisions mathematically optimal.
   
   
   
4. "The NBN is in crisis."
   I will give you this one. There is some hope that internet satellite (e.g from SpaceX) will massively increase competition and provide high speed internet to the entire world.
   
   
   
5. "Media conglomeration is on the rise."
   I don't think this is a problem because of the rise of new forms of media and ways to get information. I don't know anyone under 25 that actually has a TV or reads a newspaper anymore. You need to fight the system not just complain that the government isn't doing enough. (Look at how the right wing is taking over youtube / social media). The influence of big tech companies like Google and Facebook is worrying, but no party in Australia can do much about that. That is up to the EU and US.
   
   
   
6. "Increasing sexism and racism."
   Increasing sexism? I really doubt this, unless you mean sexist against men. We are now having quotas for police / firefighters / army and reduced standards which will reduce the effectiveness of these bodies by promoting ideology over actual merit. Same thing in universities, universities now have a vast majority of female students. Yet we still see female only scholarships and pandering that is acting like women are still some disadvantaged group. Most men are sick of all of this and want a merit based system rather than women getting unfair advantages which is actually what is sexist. And just take a look at the WGEA. Just considering that we have a federal government body trying to fix the "wage gap" which has been thoroughly debunked is actually ridiculous. Just because differences between women and men exist, doesn't equal sexism. People have different priorities in their lives. If women want to focus less on paid work in their life then that is their business and you have no right to say that is wrong.
   Fundamentally the right wing believes more in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. We all have the opportunity to apply for the jobs, but the men might be more suited, or the women might make working less of a priority in their life. And nothing is wrong with that.
   "Increasing racism." Not really going to answer this one as it doesn't deserve much of a response, but opposing immigration to reduce impacts to cost of living and the living standards of the future of our country isn't racist in my opinion.
   
   
   
7. Climate change.
   I agree that Labor would be better at dealing with this, due to the carbon tax which is a good economic incentive system to reduce emissions.
   
   
   Liberal Party
   
   

• Wins on Education (Needs to be cut significantly, as empirical and logical evidence is proving this to be a waste of money and time which can actually increase inequality.)
  
• Wins on Immigration
  
• Wins on Sexism (No quotas, believes in individual choice of men and women and accepts that this might result in different outcomes.)
  
• Wins on Energy Prices
  
• Wins on Housing Prices (Via lower taxes, only a marginal win. Neither party would influence the market much.)
  
• Wins on Economic Policy (Lower company tax rates, less distorted market system, not wanting to change the refund of dividend franking credits, in general seems to understand economics better rather than being populist with policies that sound good but don't make much sense.)
  
  
  Labor Party
  
  
• Wins on Health
  
• Wins on Climate Change
  
• Wins on NBN
  
  
  Both Loses
  
  
• Inequality. Seriously read this book https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/0648061108/ref=cm_cr_ryp_prd_ttl_sol_0. This is probably the biggest area to reduce inequality (corruption / favours) and nobody is talking about it.
  
  
  So in summary. The issues that Labor wins at, have much easier solutions technology wise (global satellite internet, biotech, solar and wind will out compete the cost of coal / gas eventually anyway). This leaves me to vote for Liberal for the issues which actually require fixing by the government.

i was a renter a long time, i know the argument well and supported being a renter for those reasons and tried that approach. its really hard to get a consistent good return on your capital. interest account? forget it, govt just taxes it as income. that pretty much leaves equities and bonds. i did it myself at first buying shares with all sorts of strategies (built trading bots as well), but realised index funds were a much better alternative exception to this is unless you really know what youre doing trading wise. also forget managed funds, fees eat into your profit big time and some studies say that they dont beat indexes over time on average.

the best alternative i found were index funds (they are low cost) but specifically a blend of bonds and equities indexes. best product are from the vanguard index funds having read boggleheads book (highly recommended on the finance sub) https://www.amazon.com/Bogleheads-Guide-Investing-Taylor-Larimore/dp/0470067365 I got the growth fund from vanguard 30% debt based income 70% equities

basic idea is you have your bonds in your age, equities in the rest with a mix of international and local shares. the idea of this strategy is when the market goes pair shaped people buy bonds for saftely and vice versa when things are good people buy shares but bonds are safe to hold to maturity. so this balances out your portfolio.

the above strategy is prob the best possible chance to get a good return on your money but its a long term strategy, 5 years min but ideally its a lifetime thing. but it did help me save for a deposit.

> Have you dealt much with software patents? While prior art is a legitimate attack on the process it's a fairly shaky ground if it's your only real argument because it's an amorphous term. I mean, if the prior art covers concepts A, B, C, and D, but this new solution covers A, C, D, and E, then prior art alone isn't going to be enough to null it.

1. If you are honestly trying to argue that software patents like this are "sound" then obviously dont work anywhere near the field of IP.
   
   
2. Software prior arts are INCREDIBLY difficult to research for a startup. To do it thoroughly you are honestly talking about paging through tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers to ensure that your slight innovation and system with your GPS service delivery has NEVER been mentioned be other developers. There is registering a patent on a budget and there is spending the hundreds of thousands that is actually required to do it properly.
   
   
3. Of course there are some cases in software patents are much more straight forward, where there is clear innovation in play. The organisation existing prior arts (software systems) in a way that is fit-for-purpose for a business is much harder, and importantly, VERY expensive. For instance... swipe left on a phone device... pretty straight forward... having the GPS service embedded in delivery cars in a specific way not done before, not so clear.
   
   
4. Having some family that work in Universities, (who issues tens of thousands of patents per annum), the advice I've been given is its much easier to patent a business system than software itself... largely due to the ability to skin a problem in multiple ways. Whereas, when you patent processes and systems, it can be easier to establish a barrier for competitor entry because the competitor can never offer what your whole system promises.
   
   Again though, there is a difference between claiming innovative steps for a new technology.. and trying to claim a use case for a GPS solution for the delivery business. One is more difficult to research/costly by orders of magnitude than the other.
   
   A complete hypothetical, imagine the system involves you have the GPS delivery, and then at the end there is a quick survey on how fast it was and a guarantee for delivery on time or something free. Lets assume this has never been mentioned before, and I patent it with those two steps on the end, possibly as a business system instead.
   
   So, this might help you establish a monopoly on the best possible delivery service, because only your business system is able to offer this survey and the guarantee, but that doesnt stop dominos from just copying the baseline generic software patent without the survey and guarantee.
   
   I've read over the patent and if you honestly think this patent cant be slightly modified and then redone in what is in the field of prior art you have no idea what you are talking about. If you wanted to put money on this I bet I could find dozens of similar patents/systems and alternative ways to skin the problem that Dominos could use. It wouldnt be identical, but it would be good enough.
   
   Dominos are pieces of shit because they likely manipulated and lied to these guys from the start at the very least they could have ceased the relationship like gentlemen. But... these guys at Precision probably needed to be more realistic about their patent on the global scale in terms of being able to impose a monopoly on the industry.
   
   -----------
   
   > You can get fucked right there
   
   > I own a consultancy that operates out of Sydney and Canberra and there is literally no way on this green earth I'd ever risk my entire company based off of a handshake agreement. When I need to outlay significant capital to secure hires and/or equipment that I can't use elsewhere there needs to be a contract signed.
   
   Where did i say to risk everything off handshakes. I was talking about the fact that the trade contract they had in place would likely never be agreed in a manner that was strong enough to obfuscate them potentially going with another party one day.
   
   Of course you need retail agreements with people you do business. I outright said that several times which you blatantly ignored. The primary reason you need this is to protect your own liabilities as a service provider.
   
   I'm just saying, if Australia Post tried to tell people they were selling a delivery service to, "you cant use any other delivery service in the future if you go with us", the client will say "no thanks, we wont do business with you".
   
   Dominos are pieces of shit, i'm not defending them here. But where are all the other customers using Precisions GPS tracking solution? It seems like if they had somehow established themselves as a market leader, offering a quality and well priced solution in the market, Dominos never would have gone with a competitor instead. Perhaps Precision priced wrong because they thought they could due to having a patent?
   
   None of this speculation matters much. I only objected to one thing, which was people shitting on the handshake deal. If you work at a massive corp, I can understand thinking that the contracts have to cover every aspect. But for Aussie startups, my opinion is that you will never be able to cover every aspect in a contract, and to retain clients you need demonstrate value.
   
   I got a good book last year on this very topic, "Getting Naked". http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Naked-Business-Shedding-Sabotage/dp/0787976393
   
   In summary, IMO, the fact the handshake was in play had nothing to do with why they got ripped off in this particular case. Its the fact that Dominos lawyers think their patent isnt worth shit. Whatever contract you are imagining that they could have thrown out to lock Dominos in from day 0 is something Dominos never would have signed... thats all i'm saying.
   
   Also, I would bet my business that GPS tracking systems were already in play in the US when these guys started it, its just their particular method involving displays etc is the particular version these guys tried to claim for themselves.

Hi there. This post has a little reading but please feel free to skip to the recommendations closer to the bottom. While I do waffle a bit, it's just because I get ridiculously excited about bringing peopleinto politics because democracy is a passion of mine. Don't be intimidated by politics. Everyone, even experienced professors like Waleed Aly wander in the dark a lot when it comes to some issues.

I have a degree in politics and international relations and have been active in the Liberals before.

Having declared by colours let me tell you straight up that you are on the right track by both committing to learn and rejecting whaty ou are fed offhand. If you wanna really get into the meat of politics it's really handy to have an understanding of ideology -that's the groupings of belief systems in politics.

In short; politics is the study of power and how to justly manage it. Understanding the basic ideas behind liberalism, conservatism, and socialism which are the three really dominant ideas in the modern era will really help you understand the news in a whole new light.

So I would suggest you invest in a text book that first year politics students might end up studying and reading it. These kinds of books usually spend a fair bit of time explaining how the system works, and also what ideologies are what, their sub-groups (and there are many) and try and really make the whole thing less confusing.

---

Reccomendations If you want to learn more about politics I highly recommend Andrew Heywoods "Political Ideologies" -this is a first year book that was given to me at the beginning of my degree and is a fantastic, easy to understand book all about how the world works. Here is its amazon page.

Now it is a text book, it can seem a bit bland, but you don't have to read it cover to cover. It's more like a little bible you can refer to when you want to understand something. If you hear words you don't get, or have an inclination to look into something specific, you can check it for more information.

I'll add, in terms of learning about current issues and opinions specifically you need to 'equip' yourself. What does that mean? It means that you are a very vulnerable person at first. You are vulnerable to pre-packaged soundbytes, to partisan tribalism, to deceptive or disingenuous or misleading arguments and to being lead to an opinion without experiencing the alternative points of view. You don't need to avoid the media but do keep your distrust healthy. Read or listen to high quality news sources, and from a few sources instead of one.

I can recommend several that I use that I don't think will try and lure you into any kind of agenda or ideology and let you approach it for yourself. Grattan Institute is a public policy think tank and you can always trust them to be very in depth. Monocle is an International publication and if you read them you will learn a lot about more than just Australia, and they also have a 24/7 radio station which churns out some awesome programs. I listen to their Asia podcast at least once or twice a week, it's fantastic but region focused not Australia, so depends on what you want. Lastly, watch ABC24 or SBS News programs. ABC is a little bit pro-labor, unfortunately, but if you stay aware of that it's not a problem. Their news is higher quality, is less plastic and sold-out, and very much in depth.

> Since they clearly want to stay allies with us due to our strategic positioning?

Our strategic positioning which does them precisely no good at all, you mean?

They are only there because of Indonesia, and we have shown that we are more than capable of handling them ourselves.

> Where condemnation means condemnation? Hell did any nation even use the word 'condemn' once?

You're fucking kidding me. YES!

> Oh yes your vague, possible future 'realities'.

Which are a hell of a lot more reliable than your 'but… but… but… this is the way it's always been so this is the way it will stay!'

> And what exactly leads you to think that?

Oh I don't know - how about actually being familiar with what the ICC has done?

> So you agree that it's basically powerless then and dictators can committ all the crimes they want in their borders until it becomes something the UNSC cares enough about, usually becoming an international conflict, (since China basically has a policy to veto anything that allows action in internal matters as much as it can).

No, it is not basically powerless. It has power. You are deliberately being an idiot. I was simply agreeing that the ICC does not have any kind of direct control over UN security council forces. It is not basically powerless.

> Ahahaha, 1990? No wonder I couldn't find it, I was looking for something actually relevant. Oh yeah Israel is clearly on the verge of losing US support since they let that one whole wording issue through a quarter-century ago, nevermind all the times up to the present it's stopped any resolution that would actually hurt it.

Oh, yeah, it's not like even stuff from years ago can still have effects, can it?

Do you even think before you post?

Oh and er, nice job dodging all the more recent and serious resolutions against it too.

> Both are powerful, but ideology remains a strong force. And the only countries in the mid-East that genuinely care about Israel (it's direct neighbours and Iran basically) are of little importance to the US.

And the ones that don't care about Israel are even more important to the US - like Saudi Arabia.

> Because we, the citizenry, didn't know about it. Our government however doubtlessly knew all along. We've been in this for a while.

I'm sorry but your links prove absolutely nothing. There is no proof to support your claim that they were aware of it. They probably suspected, but there is nothing to suggest that they knew about it. Like I say, we share information, and work together. That is it.

> The entire case history of the court whose job it is to interpret the Constitution is irrelevant.

Yes it is - because it only deals with our constitution.

> Generally accepted where exactly? In every Australian case or legal text it's consistently capitalised.

Patently BS because the sources I showed you before demonstrate that it is not.

> The dick are you on about? The point is in not a single part of the excerpts is it ever used in the lower case. And you've still provided no evidence for even a single usage of it in the lower case in its noun form in that textbook, or any other Australian legal text or case.

Yes it is. Look inside the book.

> Also nice try dodging the point about how it's not even an Australian text.

Which is irrelevant to the initial point I was making.

> But hell I'll give you credit if you can provide a photo of a single usage of it in that book, I mean surely you didn't just cite it randomly and you have a physical or digital copy of it, right?

Well, you could have tried Amazon…

> I can only assume you're going for these completely non-sensical arguments now in attempt to confuse and hope no one else notices you have no idea what talking about.

It's not my fault you can't follow basic logic. It's also not my fault you don't know the difference between a codified Constitution (capitalisation intentional) and a non codified constitution and how that affects the convention of how the word is written.

> But hey don't let that stop you from linking to another quality source like Ask.com, go for Yahoo Answers next time maybe.

It's better than having a source irrelevant to the point.

> Ahaha, even assuming that was a thing, watering down a far more basic human right like that to free speech to protect one from 'emotional injury' is insanity.

What's more insane? Infringing on several other basic human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just so one political right can be upheld, or maximising everybody's personal freedom and rights by limiting that one right?

FYI - freedom of speech only ever referred to the right in government to get up and say what you wanted. What you are referring to in terms of rights is the right to freedom of expression, which is already more than amply allowed for in our current legislation.

> Except 18C prohibits it anywhere in public, the legal definition of which is extremely very wide. For example it could easily catch a situation where someone overhears two friends making 'offensive' and 'hurtful' jokes between themselves on the bus or a street corner.

Then do it as part of an artistic presentation, or as part of a political speech, or do it as part of academia, or as part of the public interest. You can do all of that in my state.

Failing that, if it is that important to you, you can go to a different country and have your free speech there. Like I say - 18C effectively does not limit your free speech - just where you can do it.

>Oh now there's the name of the crime you can prosecute at your Aus Nuremberg!

No - the crimes I would try this government for at any trial would be crimes against humanity.

> Yes, and they're covered by s18D, which I assumed (and was correct) you are already aware of.

Exactly. 18D removes a lot of the teeth of 18C and provides ample space for people to express racist views.

> Yes, and? I never said the law was wrongly applied. It's just that it is, in my opinion and the current government's, a terrible one whose only solution is repeal.

Well thank God it seems the majority of Australians are against you and them.

> One shouldn't need to meet any standards to make their speech legal outside of where it may cause imminent actual damage/lawlessness similar to the US standard.

But racist speech does, in every instance, cause imminent actual damage. That's what you don't understand.

Emotional damage is actual damage. End of discussion.

> Oh no, not calls.
This has never ever happened before and truly Israel will collapse within the month!

Yeah - nice job ignoring the staggeringly long list of genuine sanctions against them.

> Except it is. Again:

No it is not. Three words: stop the boats. They can only ever mean stop the boats. They cannot mean 'stopping the boats from leaving' or 'stopping the boats from arriving'. The phrase 'stop the boats' can only ever mean 'stop the boats'.

Even if you could take your interpretation as true (which you can't) his claim still does not come true. It's not true because the boats are still 'leaving' and they are still 'arriving'.

>What about a factory that is polluting a river that several small villages use for drinking water and agriculture. At what point does law become regulation?

This is obviously an issue of the courts. If you set the precedent that everything can be fixed with a simple regulation, it creates a very complex, inefficient and wasteful system that can be managed just as easily by the justice system. Besides, isn't there a thread here almost everyday of government passing regulations that help one business at the expense of another?

>on your second paragraph

You're talking about Marx's labour theory of value, that you should be paid according to the amount of hours of work you do.

In the mid-1800s, Karl Marx used the labor theory of value to postulate that workers were being exploited by owners, and that the level of exploitation is measured by the amount of profit a business collects. Marx essentially believed that the value of any good could be objectively calculated by adding the cost of the raw material used in the product to the value of the labor that went into producing it. His theory regarded profit as an unfair reduction of wages paid to the worker. Eliminating exploitation therefore involved eliminating profit by either increasing wages or giving any surplus to the worker.

The theory was embraced by workers everywhere, and eventually found its way into countries like the Soviet Union. Once in place, however, it became immediately obvious that the theory wasn't creating the worker's paradise it promised. In 1918 Russia, for example, Lenin announced that all profits and surplus would be seized by the state and distributed to workers. Because of this, farmers began growing food only for themselves, since they knew that any extra would be taken by the state. Widespread starvation was the result.

Industry fared no better. By 1920 small factories were producing just 43% of their 1913 total. Large factories were producing 18% of their 1913 figure. Coal production was at 27% of its 1913 figure in 1920. By 1920, the average worker had a productivity rate that was 44% less than the 1913 figure. It got so bad that in 1921 Lenin was forced to once again allow private profit. Industry quickly recovered.

Though most modern economists say Marx's work has been discredited in both theory and practice, his words still resonate with worker movements and would-be revolutionaries around the world. Yet with the economic foundation of Marxism largely discredited, those words now spread dangerous fallacies in their eloquence. Most who share them are unaware of this fact, and every generation ends up having to relearn this the hard way.

Sources: 1, 2

>but my work generates 10x what I am paid in profits for the company

Do not forget, labour is competitive too. Another company would offer you a higher wage and better bonuses if you are as productive as you say you are.

>how is that an ideal system?

It's not ideal. But it's the best we have. If you dislike the current system, you have to ask yourself three questions.

1. Relative to what?
   
   
2. At what cost?
   
   
3. What hard evidence do you have?

>Sure, except there is not a finite level of wealth in the real world, nor is wealth gained by arbitrary or random means.

Not sure what world you are living in, but in mine there is a finite amount of food, land, money, gold, trees, oil, iphones. How do you think the laws of supply and demand work?

Wealth is not gained by arbitrary or random means? Really? Lets tell the kid who was born in Congo that he really failed at picking his parents. Or an example closer to home - when you wanted to start your first telecommunications company, did your parents put up a few million bucks in venture capital for you as happened with Lachlan Murdoch and James Packer?

Ohhh, I see where you're going with this. In Libertarian fantasy land wealth is allocated by hard work, and chance plays a very marginal role. Capital and inherited wealth pale against the billion dollar earning power of a hard working primary school teacher! In reality, labour does not out earn capital.

>Why are countries with free markets so wealthy? Why do countries like HK, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan have such a strong middle class?

Because for one, they aren't free market economies. Most of their growth was led by their governments. Singapore is basically a technocratic dictatorship ruled by one family - perhaps you're familiar with Singtel, owner of Optus or Singapore Airlines, both controlled by government investment corporation Temasek?

Korea is run by an oligarchy of family owned conglomerates called "Chaebols" - Samsung, LG, Hyundai, all of the drivers of their economy are too-big-to-fail and heavily state supported.

Hong Kong and Taiwan were able to profit from proximity and cultural ties to China to build their economies.

And China's decades long double digit economic growth model wasn't thanks to the free market either. They call it "State Capitalism", which is a fancy way of saying fascism.

>Again, evidence and history does not support your claims.

Yes it does. Most industries in market economies start out fiercely competitive but ultimately merge into an oligarchy if not strictly regulated by the government.

6 companies control 90% of the USA's media, down from 50 in 1983.

Since 1990, 37 of the USA's big banks merged to become just 4 too-big-to-fail megabanks.

This process happens even faster in a small economy like Australia's, where we have been stuck with an cartel of 4 too-big-to-fail banks for a very long time now.

You need to acquaint yourself with the basics of how markets work, and how unregulated markets inevitably become monopolistic. You can start with "Wealth of Nations" by the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith.

Thank God You're Here - Improv show. I think the format was sold to different nations but I feel the Australian version would hold up.

Frontline - Comedy serious from the mid 90's set in the office of a current affairs show. While fictitious, a lot of the plots were based around real life events of the times, mostly the stuff that was fodder for the legit current affairs shows.

I think it's held up well, certainly here, as if anything, current affairs shows have gotten even more ridiculous.

The Best Bits Of The Late Show - Another comedy show from the early 90's. I think it hold up well as is hilarious, but I really loved it so might be a bit bias there. Much of it is based on news of the day or Australian circumstances from the early 90's, so there would probably be a lot an Australian today would have trouble remembering, let alone someone from overseas.

The Hollowmen - Comedy set in the office of a political advisory unit to the Prime Minister. Funny show that highlights politics as been more of a popularity contest then actually achieving anything.

Summer Heights High - Mockumentary by Chris Lilley in which he playes three characters in a high school.

We Can be Heroes - Another mockumentry by Chris Lilley playing several Australian of the Year candidates. Made before Summer Hights.

John Safran vs God - Documentary by John Safran where he humorously explores different religions.

The Games - A satirical behind-the-scenes look at the bureaucrats organising the 2000 Sydney Olympics

The inquisitional legal system designed by napoleon used by most countries that didn't inherit their legal system from the British.

If you are interested in seeing just how bad out system is I would recommend reading

>Our Corrupt Legal System

by the brilliant Walkley Award-winning journalist Evan Whitton

>Whitton, who was a member of The Australian Media Hall of Fame, went on to win five Walkleys in total - in 1967, 1970, 1973, 1974 and 1975. In 1983 he was named the Melbourne Press Club's Graham Perkin Australian Journalist of the Year for his coverage of the Street Royal Commission in NSW, also known as the Wran Royal Commission.

>In Melbourne, he uncovered allegations of police extortion at abortion clinics, coverage which led to the Kaye Inquiry and won him his 1970 Walkley Award.

>He left Truth for a brief stint at the Sunday Australian before joining Fairfax Media, first at the National Times as assistant editor and then editor, before moving to the Sydney Morning Herald as chief reporter in 1981.

>Known for his long-form, narrative journalism, Whitton dissected the Petrov Affair and the HMAS Voyager disaster, and also covered the Fitzgerald Inquiry into police corruption in Queensland. He was also famous for his 26,000 word, three-part series on how Australia got into the Vietnam War.

>https://www.smh.com.au/national/walkley-award-winning-journalist-evan-whitton-dies-aged-90-20180717-p4zrvz.html

 

>Our Corrupt Legal System

>The lawyer-run adversary system used in Britain and its former colonies, including the US, India, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia does not try to find the truth. It is the only system which conceals evidence. 'Our Corrupt Legal System' explains why trial lawyers, famously economical with the truth, control evidence; civil hearings take weeks, months or years; in serious criminal cases, 24 anti-truth devices allow more than 50% of guilty accused to escape justice.

>By contrast, in the investigative system used in Europe and other countries, including Japan, trained judges control evidence and seek the truth; civil hearings take a few hours; 95% of guilty accused are convicted. It is the most widespread, accurate and cost-effective system. Russell Fox, an Australian judge who researched the law for 11 years, concluded: 'The public estimation must be correct, that justice marches with the truth.' The vast majority of voters will support change to a truthseeking system: trial lawyers are fewer than 0.2% of the population; the public are 99.8%. 'A masterpiece.' - Phillip Knightley, twice British Journalist of the Year.

 

Edit; The book is legally available for free as well


www.netk.net.au/whitton/ocls.pdf



>In a small nod to the public interest, the book can be downloaded free from netk.net.au/whitton/ocls.pdf, and extracts can be republished gratis. Also available from Amazon and books.google.com.au/ebooks.

>https://tasmaniantimes.com/2013/03/free-book-our-corrupt-legal-system-can-now-be-dowloaded-free/

https://www.amazon.com/G751JL-17-Inch-Gaming-Laptop-model/dp/B00T7EXKLG

Well, they run, but not very happily. I mostly stick to my playstation these days. Overwatch plays fine, but playing BL3 gave my laptop the added benefit of becoming a space heater. It's time for an upgrade.

It wasn't $2500; it was closer to $1200. I purchased it from an international seller, so in today's market it would probably have been about $1800 (ignoring inflation).

Again, I won't be able to spend the same amount on a desktop that I would a laptop. I appreciate the cost savings relative to performance, but looking at a $2500 laptop vs a $1700 desktop + a $800 laptop, plus obsolescence, is where this line of inquiry is ultimately focused.

To segue back to the original post: How does a similarly spec'd offering from Metabox or Aftershock price against that Dell you were looking at?

We're at $0.68 to the USD at present, so a multinational's product from a global oligopoly is not likely to stack up in price compared to a small-scale domestic competitor. That probably lends further merit to the price disparity between a build-your-own desktop and a comparable laptop (as most laptops come from name brands), notwithstanding customisation and upgrade considerations and instead with an emphasis on performance-per-dollar.

In my mind this is the actual ideological war that is currently being fought, but it never gets too much of a discussion. Glad books like Capital and Reich's new documentary are prosecuting the case.

This issue is the clear separation between the parties. This is all the data we have on equality in Australia, red is for ALP governments and blue for LNP governments.

Since 1980, the ALP have run an even keel on GINI, which is the accepted measure for inequality. They haven't improved equality of income, but it hasn't gotten worse.

Since 1980 the LNP have seen inequality increase rapidly, with GINI up 0.05, making us the 9th most unequal country in the OECD (out of 34 countries).

If GINI hadn't gone up (ie ALP was in power and maintained their trend), we would be around the tenth most equal, jumping around 15 countries or half the OECD.

Of course, as you can see, this means we have a centrist and a right party, which means inequality will always go up over time. The ALP have ceded the battle, in effect. Perhaps why the Greens vote is creeping up, along with the vote for the populist right, like PUP?

The good news? The last time inequality was this bad (US graph just because we suck at this topic, it is relevant here for a number of reasons) was the start of the Progressive Era, which resulted in more progressive taxation, a focus on education, healthcare and scientific research, exposure of political corruption, big leaps in equality for women and racial/ethnic minorities and so on.

Is the same happening now? The conversation has already started, with books like Capital. The Occupy movement and March in March were huge, and while the media basically ignored them or criticised them, hundreds of thousands of people in the streets doesn't happen for nothing.

Even some MPs are talking about it.

Time for a New Progressive movement?

Cost me $90 on Amazon AU for a certain HDMI cable that was $14 on US. And in the end it came from the US! The Amazon AU site is a joke.

EDIT: Thanks for all the HDMI cable buying advice. But this https://www.amazon.com.au/ECHOGEAR-4ft-Braided-HDMI-Cable/dp/B07622BBFX is HDMI 2.1 and harder to come by than just picking one up at a servo. And, yes the price has dropped now, and availability has improved too.

1. We can absolutely build our own subs, in fact we must if we wish to retain any sense of a maritime industry.
   
   
2. Building our own must be factored into the program, it makes for a hugely cheaper and more problem free maintenance/upgrade work afterwards as well as a huge nation building project that encourages very high tech, high quality manufacturing.
   
   
3. Australia has very unique requirements, no MOTS design will work without significant alterations.
   
   
4. Japan has huge political and legal issues selling war products and intellectual property.
   
   Purchasing the Japanese subs is only being considered politically, no one in RAN supports this idea. It is way to risky with very few rewards and huge negatives.
   
   Edit: Readings
   
   https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/strategic-insights-22-cutting-edge-the-collins-experience/SI_Collins.pdf
   
   https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/setting-a-course-for-australias-naval-shipbuilding-and-repair-industry/aspi_shipbuilding.pdf
   
   http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1033.pdf
   
   http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/Multimedia/FSISPWEB-9-4506.pdf
   
   http://www.amazon.com/The-Collins-Class-Submarine-Story/dp/0521868947

Read this:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitive-ebook/dp/B019MMUA8S

It's a funny book but also genuinely good info

Just sayin... I suspect the wholesale adoption of neoliberal economic policy from the mid 70s onwards might be somewhat more responsible for the erosion of the western middle class than television.

A couple of books give pretty compelling evidence of this:

https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273

https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/067443000X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499813570&sr=1-1&keywords=capital

Just came across something weird today myself.

Aussie store $31.98+$10.77

or US store $20.78 (not available to be shipped from).

Dunno if there's a way to get around it or I just have to bite it and pay ~$40. To be fair, it's normally ~$60 on the US store, but being cut down to $20 made it super appealing.

They do and they don't. Amazon sells things directly that they stock themselves. They are also an open market place that anybody can register and sell on. Most people don't realise that. EG this SD card is sold by Amazon and a store called PC Byte.

https://www.amazon.com.au/SanDisk-microSDHC-Memory-Adapter-Performance/dp/B073JWXGNT/

You can see Amazon's listing on the right. But because the third party is cheaper it becomes the main listing. Amazon is selling it for $20, while the other store is selling it for $17.

tl;dr It depends on the product.