What type of thing they say is scary? Technical knowledge? Not sure what you are saying here.

All I can speak for is the area I studied - economics. My experience is that, at the research level especially (as opposed to teaching) there is a lot of interaction between industry and academics. One of my tutors was actually a judge in a WTO trade dispute between the US and Japan. In economics at least, there is a tonne of "real world" interaction.

I also did some study in politics and philosophy - they are much closer to the uni academic stereotype, I'll concede that!

actually come to think of another effect might be that some people in the usa (haven't heard this claim here) claim that government helping the poor actually hurts them because of market distortions. That could be one explanation

Last time I was in the usa I wanted to test this claim so I made a chart of what the gdp per capita looked like for the bottom 80%, 50% and 25% of the income distribution verse a rough measure of how left a country is.
You have to scroll down and across to get the charts

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Sc_r46y8LzUwPF6GGAOfcmDps-VlK8a5C1iekxXXYeo/edit#gid=0

the conclusions were
1. The bottom 80% of working people are twice as well off in the most left wing rich market democracy compared to the most right
2. The bottom 50% of working people were three times as well off
3. The bottom 25% are four times as well off

A few caveats:
1. My measure of "leftness" is taxes as a fraction of gdp plus union density. In hindsight perhaps welfare as a % + union density would have been better
2. I did not include unemployment rates since the problem is already quite complicated. This would harm my conclusion a small amount because there appears to be a correlation between taxes as a % of gdp and unemployment. The effect is small but probably between 1 and 3% between the extremes. I only looked at working people using gini's calculated after redistribution (taxes and welfare)
3. I used a exponential rather than a piecewise exponential income distribution (steeper slopes at both tails of the income distribution) . Fixing this would boost my conclusion. Pretty difficult to do though!
4. I looked at income rather than income per hour worked. Left wing countries tend to work less due to retiring earlier, starting later (because they are less likely to have jobs in college), have longer vacations and shorter working weeks

grazor, this stuff is too high quality for this thread =d> I'll have a good look at this when I get some time tonight :)

Nikki Savvas, Gerrard Henderson, Andrew Bolt off the top of my head. Bolt was on Pickering's show last week. Tim Wilson was regularly on shows before the Libs appointed him to a govt role.

The problem is you can't understand the difference in the qualitative approach. Sky News is often a bunch of talking heads throwing opinions around in a try-hard Aussie version of Fox News.

If you are counting Graham Richardson as presenting a "left wing" viewpoint, you really do not understand the meaning of left wing.

Yes, you get the standard lefty audiences on Q&A. But much of what ABC does (Insiders, 4 Corners) is actually quite in-depth and qualitative.

There was also that govt study which found no bias, but of course you would dismiss that.

The problem with Sky News is that people are representing their "team" instead of actually analysing the issue at hand.

ABC do have a bit of that too with the Drum (both the show and the website) but it's delineated much clearer.

Edited by mcjules: 16/5/2016 02:52:20 PM

Great work grazorblade!

The other explanation I have read is that in countries like the USA there is much more of a clear need for charity from the rich given how badly off the poorest are in many states.

Whereas in countries with an established welfare state, people donate less because they take the view that "this is what my taxes pay for".

Would be interesting to see how much the rich in the USA pay in taxes plus what they give in charity, and compare to the same in Europe/Australia etc. I reckon rich americans would still be paying out much less.

In economics the picture is complicated
1. There appears to be strong evidence that left wing policies increase unemployment by a moderate amount
2. There appears to be strong evidence that left wing policies dramatically increase the well being of the working poor and even the middle class.
So there is a tradeoff if your motive for voting is helping people rather than self interest.
I'm not exactly sure where the balance lies. I'm not 100% sure of Europe but I'm pretty strong in the opinion that the usa's sytem makes things worse. I tend to think the balance is somewhere to the left of Australia but not sure where

It's unfounded opinions they have and a general lack of practical knowledge with things like testing and drill rigs which get the data they want. Some of the worst I've heard:

- DCP's must be continued to 50 blows/100mm (any more than 15/100mm damages the equipment).
- Ignoring the limitations of a drop cone Atterberg Limits test which is subject to the compactive effort of the tester placing soil in the mould. Higher impact results in bringing water to the surface of the mould which results in higher liquid limit results which are inaccurate. If a second person did the test on the same sample, results would be different.
- Academics insisting on designing on laboratory test results only and ignoring field observations.
- Academics being completely ignorant of how stupid drilling on an angle is. You cannot do in-situ tests on an angle.
- Doing cone penetrometer tests in gravel fill (it's designed for soil with the consistency of ice-cream).
- Structural lecturers saying that concrete chair heights must be accurate to the millimetre. If you told a concreter to go and cut exactly 13mm off every chair in a slab he'd kill your entire family.

It's not that they're not smart, it's that in my experience anyone with Dr. in front of their name isn't switched on when it comes to the actual obtaining of data they want. They don't care as long as the numbers end up on their desk. However in my experience they're not well known for being compromising people either.....

I'm actually starting to take on some undergraduates from my old university to get them some experience before they hit the real world. God help me!

in looking for explanations why conservatives in the usa give more one thing you have to be careful of is the fact that social scientists will control for things like class so an explanation that only involves why rich american conservatives might give more is only relevant compared to the generosity of rich american liberals (of the same religiosity gender education etc)

None of those names you mentioned are permanent fixtures. Having 5 minutes of Bolt or any token conservative every six months doesn't prove ABC's commitment to diversity or impartiality.

Those names I mentioned on the Labor side, Kenneally, Grant, Richardson etc either have their own slots or a permanent panelists. My point is there's a greater commitment to capturing the wide range of views in the public domain than the ABC, and this reflects in their business model, and is evidenced by the wide range of contributors from all sides of politics.

Shows like four corners do a decent job of packaging sometimes complex issues into a 60 minute sound bite fit for public consumption, but it is still just superficial guff that barely touches the surface and is heavily editoralised to reflect the dominant lefty group think at the ABC.

Sky News is my favourite News broadcaster for this reason.

There seems to be a clear effort by them to broadcast a good cross-section.

Plus, Bolt and PM are 2 of my favourites. It is refreshing listening to commentators which don't give a stuff about PC and who tell it the way it is without the window dressing.

Mark Latham is also great value. He has been so impressive with his views on PC and the loss or degradation of free speech. Brilliant stuff.

They also have Richardson, and Keneally which give the conservative commentators some stick too. Love it! :d

That is what proper discourse and debate is all about! :cool:

The fact that you think Mark Latham provides any value is hilarious.

But I note your comment that giving the other side "some stick" is a good thing. That is actually the problem.

These panel shows are basically tabloid banter. They very rarely analyse anything in-depth.

To be fair, Sky News has a lot more time to play with.

If you watch Insiders, they always have a representative from the conservative side of politics. Likewise on News Breakfast, they always have a guest person on the couch to look at the day's headlines. They rotate between progressive and conservative types.

ABC does capture a range of views, it blatantly does. Sky News often bangs on about the same conservative topics that the general public either don't care about, or have moved on from.

Number 1 example of this was the questions asked by the audience in the SKY NEWS arranged PM debate on Friday.

The Sky News people were annoyed that they didn't ask questions about asylum seekers, or radical islam - their favourite topics.

Sky News presents a far narrower range of topics than ABC. By a mile!

I have foxtel, so I do watch both. Sky News isn't like Fox News, but their talking heads are hardly representative of a wide range of views.

Yes I agree that they rarely analyze anything in depth.

And there is a definite slant, but at least there are 2 sides of the slant provided. They also provide good analysis to the public. If people want in depth, they need to watch Parliament Question Time.

I think Mark Latham is hitting the nail on the head. That is why the Left are trying to politically assassinate his character. He is however, an honest man willing to stand up for what he believes. Respect! :cool:

Tabloid banter? These are often experts in their field, have been in politics for a long time, know the workings of Canberra and have their finger on the pulse with respect to important issues. You're not going to extract much quantitative analysis on a panel discussion but no less than four corners, which barely scratches the surface and often presents only one side of the debate. The recent episode on negative gearing was an example of clear of this bias, with an overwhelming focus on the tax benefits for the rich and nothing at all on the pernicious effect it will have on house prices and the rental market.

That's a pretty weak example you cite there. They all gave the nod to Shorten by the way, they were just pointing out most of the questions played into Shorten's social platform. They also had Peter Hartcher on for some analysis, so I think you're being unfair.

Shows like Q and A and insiders are always stacked with lefty panelists. Conservatives are either not present or heavily outnumbered, and this dictates the subject matter. On Q and A its always the same questions around gay marriage, environment, Gonski and asylum seekers. When was the last time a question on the deficit was asked? Or the economy? Or job growth? Or going nuclear? Or defence? It's fucked. It's the worst show on tele.

I'm watching Sky now and there's two leties and two righties on there. Now that's balance!

Where's the television programs for the Centries?

Sick of this lefty/righty horseshit.

-PB

Listening to Ayaan Hirsi Ali talk on Q&A makes you realise what a deflecting fuckwit Waleed Aly is.

Edited by 433: 16/5/2016 10:17:21 PM

I haven't watched this weeks episode but some of these were covered last week.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4432624.htm

I'd say most of your points are covered quite regularly, but don't let that get in the way of your agenda now. :)

Or the fact that some 10 million Australians negatively gear - most of them working class battlers!

Edited by Aikhme: 16/5/2016 11:07:23 PM

100%

The problem is macro economics is really just a set of metrics that measures what is happening at the micro level and aggregates the results to provide a snapshot of a countries economic health. It doenst really provide a guideline as to how governments should form policy. Its at the micro level where the action happens, that determines how the national statistics will look. If the business community is thriving, hiring people and high demand for their services, this will reflect in high GPD, stable inflation and low unemployment. Likewise if it is struggling it will reflect in low GDP, high unemployment etc.

Simply put a business person would be better qualified to answer whether a company tax city is going to stimulate jobs, growth and investment in the business community than an academic. Thats because business is the engine room of growth and therefore that hands on real world experience is vital to fleshing out policy which is theoretically sound but also will acheive its practical aims. Im afriad academics are often too caught up in extravagent thought bubbles and theories that go untested by reality and thus remain unpopped.

At what financial point are you no longer an "Aussie battler"?

-PB

putting a business man in charge of tax policy would be like putting a child in charge of how many lollies they get :D

Watching the CFMEU Secretary on Sky News last night was hilarious. Dodged every question and tried to turn everything back on Laura Jayes and the Journalist Union (which she isn't a part of).

Typical CFMEU :lol:

You could say the same for academics. Their jobs are funded by taxes.

and private backing......

academics in general get very little say over how much funding they get from government

Oh of course. Was just calling Rusty out as Academics aren't 100% reliant on Tax $$$.

A mate is doing research into mosquito diseases like Ross River Fever and a considerable chunk of the funding is from a private backer.

this is true. I'm not 100% of the breakdown