Change

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech

Daily Show Full Episodes
Daily Show Tickets

More Funny Videos
Comedians on Tour

Don't you know that privatisation is bad?

Privatisation 'raised death rate'

The rapid mass privatisation which followed the break up of the Soviet Union fuelled an increase in death rates among men, research suggests.

The UK study blames rapidly rising unemployment resulting from the break-neck speed of reform.

The researchers said their findings should act as a warning to other nations that are beginning to embrace widespread market reform.

Never mind that this privatisation wasn't new,  had been going on slowly for decades, and actually helped end the Soviet Union.

Never mind that privatisation brought the standard of living in Russia forward by leaps and bounds.

There hasn't been a Communist Purge in Russia, recently, has there?

Welcome, Hyperinflation, to your new home!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation

Just when I thought Great Rudd and the Ruling Class couldn't get any more stupid, they go ahead do something like this.

CHRISTMAS is coming, but the cupboard won't be bare. Millions of Australia's cash-strapped families, black and white, are about to get the biggest pay day of their lives.

The money, which comes under a Rudd government package to stimulate the economy, will begin to arrive from Monday.

The sums involved are considerable: parents will receive $1000 for every child in the family (the benefit is means-tested); single carers, pensioners and veterans will get $1400; coupled pensioners, carers and veterans will receive $2100. In some remote Aboriginal communities, where families live in extended kinship arrangements, between $10,000 and $20,000 will be deposited per household.

Luckily enough, Australia isn't in budget deficit yet (or so they tell us). First, some comments, then some maths.

1) This is tax money.
2) The report states that millions of families will receive this benefit.
3) The report further states that these families will be poor families.

4) For arguments sake, let's say that there are one million poor families, each with a single child. According to the article, these families will be given $1000 per child. That's another ONE BILLION dollar bite into the budget surplus. That number is very generous, as a lot of families have more than one kid, there's probably a lot more "poor" families than one million, and the calculation doesn't account for pensioners or veterans.

It's probably not a stretch to say that several billion dollars are going to be distributed in this scheme.

Now, you're probably thinking "So what?! Poor people get an extra buck! Isn't that a good thing?"

My answer would be: for the poor people, maybe, and ONLY in the short run.

Firstly (and you'll scoff at this) Lord Rudd is playing favorites by stealing from the rich (well, everyone, really) and giving to (only) the poor, in true socialist fashion.

Secondly, what happens when these several billion dollars enter circulation? An increase in the money supply. The direct cause of inflation. Prices are going to rise EVERYWHERE, so the benefit that the poor families gain at Christmas is going to be immediately mitigated when prices "stabilise" in January. So, the poor don't gain or loose anything, technically, and the slightly better off people just have to cop the price rise.

Thirdly, and finally, when you tally up this policy with all the other bits of government spending that Divine Rudd wants to introduce, you'll notice that the budget surplus is quickly disappearing. When it finally goes into deficit, we'll have to do what the Americans are doing. First, we'll have to borrow from the Chinese (but seeing as they've already lost all of THEIR cash in the US, they might be reluctant). When that avenue is closed, you know what they have to do? They have to PRINT the money. Poof! Whole budgets out of nowhere!

And the Weimar Republic comes home to Australia.

Oh, and if you think this COULDN'T happen in modern times, watch Mr. Mugabe put a scowl of disapproval on your mug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe

What Is a "Donkey Vote"?

"A donkey voter is someone who votes for candidates based solely upon the order they are listed on the ballot paper.

In Australia, where all State, Federal and Territory electoral systems combine compulsory turnout with some form of preferential voting, a donkey vote refers to the practice of numbering the candidates' boxes sequentially from top to bottom of the ballot-paper, rather than taking the time to number the candidates in the voter's own thought-out order of preference."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote

In my home country of Australia, voting in elections (ALL elections) is compulsory. We also use a queer voting system called "Preference Voting", wherein a voter numbers political parties or prospective prime ministers in order of personal preference. (You can check out the link here for more info.)

So, what happens when it comes to election time, and you don't have any party or candidate that's right for you? What if you think the system is broken, and would rather not vote? Well, in America you can just stay an home. That's sweet, just the way it should be (well, halfway there, anyway, but more on that in another post.)

In Australia, we don't have a choice in the matter. We have to get up off our asses, walk up to the local school / hall, and get our names ticked off in this big ol' book. But thanks to the glorious system of the Secret Ballot, what happens when we step inside the voting booth is completely up to us.

So, some of us, startled by a complete lack of political choice, or due to some ideological reason, choose to donkey vote. They put the numbers in any order, random, or just number from top to bottom. Some people don't even mark their ballot papers, and some others write in their own candidates.

In the next election I intend on drawing pretty pictures on my ballot paper...