What's wrong with the world today

[AlexS]

Zed,
You left out the lawyers

Then again, that's probably a good idea

[Wood Borer]

In Victoria lawyers until recently were called solicitors. They want to be called lawyers now because somehow they saw a connection between their former name and the activities of sex workers - soliciting.

Why change it now?

[bitingmidge]

In Queensland the sex workers (what a quaint term) want to be called Barristers, so people don't see them as mere solicitors.

P

[Trav]

I'd like to get in on this a bit.

[climb onto soapbox]

Being employed by the mother of all councils, the fed govt, I think I hvae seen the best and worst of this situation. I see the rot in governments and councils and can understand the frustration that people feel when they hear of clerks being paid $70-80k for doing SFA day in and day out. It drives me mad too.

But people need to be realistic about Australia's culture too. We do regulate everything now (or will soon). Not because people like being regulated, but because if you don't regulate certain things, someone will always find a way to exploit the system.

How often do you hear about some moron who sues the council for not putting a 18ft electrified barbed wire fence near a cliff with a sign on saying 'don't climb this fence as you may fall off the cliff'?

Our society is becoming increasingly letigious as we can no longer take responsibilities for our own actions. Councils need to charge for use of beaches and ovals because if someone trips over a sprinkler on the oval, they can sue the council for it. So the council needs to regulate who uses the oval, ensure that they all have public liability insurance etc. All this takes people.

Yet at the same time, people are less inclined to pay more for anything. everyone supports australian farmers and manufacturers, yet when we go to woolies, we all go straight for the cheapest product. $6 seems outrageous price for bananas, so we shop around to find the cheapest possible price. No wonder the retailers are screwing the farmers to get the best possible price. We do it to them.

In the end, we are doing this to ourselves.

[dismounting soap box now]

Trav the disgruntled

[silentC]

OK, well look: These days, it seems that we have removed 'responsibility' and replaced it with 'regulation'. It's a kindergarten state. We can't move for red tape because so many idiots will not take responsibility for the own actions or lack thereof.

For example, I build a house from logs in the middle of the bush. There is a bush fire and it is burned to the ground. Who is to blame? Me of course. But no, it is the local council/fire brigade/state government for letting me build it there. Yes I'm a silly nong but I deserve to be protected from my own stupidity in future.

The trouble is, because I'm such a silly sod, every other poor bastard in NSW now has to jump though hoops and build concrete bunkers to live in. We have to spend money on studies and maps and consultants in a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat. What real benefit do we get from it? Are the houses better-built? In some cases, yes, in others it is a token effort with an expensive rubber-stamp. In still more cases, people who are as likely to lose their house in a fire as Zed is to be elected God have to follow all these ridiculous regulations.

Who is behind all of this finger pointing behaviour? Insurance companies! And I'll bet they employ a sheyet (thanks Cliff) load of economists too.

[silentC]

Councils need to charge for use of beaches and ovals because if someone trips over a sprinkler on the oval, they can sue the council for it. So the council needs to regulate who uses the oval, ensure that they all have public liability insurance etc.

How many people do you actually know who have done something like this and sued? I don't know a single one. I know of a person who fell down the stairs at the golf club and sued the club. Then she did it again and tried to sue them again. I think both cases were thrown out but it still cost the club money to defend itself.

It would be interesting to see some stats on how many successful suits of this nature there have been.

[adrian]

A Sydney council had to pay out millions to a guy who was paralysed when he dived headfirst into a sandbank on a Sydney beach. I think the reports said that he had been drinking and ignored signs to swim within the flag zone.
So now councils are responsible when sandbanks are formed by tide and wave action. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[ndru]

ndru,

I am not sure I follow your argument which suggests that if some people have unfortunately suffered due to poor economic management then reading a book on economics becomes one of life's most exciting and important activities. Perhaps the manager of the economy where you suffered had their head stuck in a text book to the oblivious to people suffering around them.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I studied economics as a subject for one year and yes, I had to study the boring dry content but I didn't make it the focus of my life or study it without living. Thank goodness I never studied economics again.

I have been fortunate to have studied but I also socialised and had interests way beyond my areas of study. Isn't there a saying “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”. (no reference to any Jacks on this BB).

I think the confusion is due to me incorrectly paraphrasing you correctly. I just got the overall impression from your post that you viewed economics as attracting "wastes of space".

Just to explain my point of view: I can immediately think of at least a few people who have contributed towards raising living standards of millions through the development and application of economic policy over the last 100 years, through international aid organisations (World Bank, IMF) or with their own governments.

I strongly believe that without economists our governments would be regulating and spending the public purse based on populists beliefs (ie the stuff you hear on talk back radio). I think it is a useful field of science and needs people dedicated to its pursuit. Of course, there have been some big mistakes using popular economic ideas of the day.

Having said this, I understand if economics is not your cup of tea, nor should it be.

You asked so I responded. I hope this clarfied my point.

Cheers

[Ashore]

About two years ago the state government forced it into amalgamation with the City council along with 3 other councils. These 3 other councils were running fairly effeciently apart from one that had a million dollar compensation claim against it and was caught up in the HIH debacle.


And the state government says this is to make it more effecient. In my eye it is.

Always be Careful when they say it's good for the consumer

My favorite with the council is there enviroment protection department
had a neighbour who complained about the noise said I was running a small buissness etc , the same complaint he had made about other neighbours the year before. All rubbish but these enviroment protection officers came out
found nothing but were back two months later another complaint found no problem, again another complaint so told them to deal with future complaints through my lawyer who asked for copies of complaint , no can do all verbal complaints take to ombudsman and no more council visits . And to employ these people to set up their own little empires they use my Rates, i'de rather have the footpaths repaired but no the council has to have its priorities.

[silentC]

A Sydney council had to pay out millions to a guy who was paralysed when he dived headfirst into a sandbank on a Sydney beach. I think the reports said that he had been drinking and ignored signs to swim within the flag zone.
So now councils are responsible when sandbanks are formed by tide and wave action. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the situation the guy is in - but one of the first things I learned as a young tacker was not to dive into water unless I knew how deep it was. So because he doesn't want to accept responsibility for his own stupidity, the rest of us have to pay.

Actually, in one of those cases, the guy claimed he was swimming between the flags when it happened. Now a typical knee-jerk reaction would be to remove the flags altogether and discontinue the surf lifesaving programme, or maybe to close the beach altogether to avoid future liability.

There was an appeal by the council, which won, then he appealed against that decision and won. Not sure whether Waverly council is going to appeal again. More public funds down the drain.

[adrian]

Always be Careful when they say it's good for the consumer

My favorite with the council is there enviroment protection department
had a neighbour who complained about the noise said I was running a small buissness etc , the same complaint he had made about other neighbours the year before. All rubbish but these enviroment protection officers came out
found nothing but were back two months later another complaint found no problem, again another complaint so told them to deal with future complaints through my lawyer who asked for copies of complaint , no can do all verbal complaints take to ombudsman and no more council visits . And to employ these people to set up their own little empires they use my Rates, i'de rather have the footpaths repaired but no the council has to have its priorities.

I think you are being a little unkind to the envirinmental protection function of local government. If you have a factory that's dumping hazardous waste into a local creek you may finally get a response from state and federal bodies by the time the creek is clinically dead. That's why there is a need for it to be handled on a local level.
I think woodies would agree that timber is a diminishing resource and the state of the environment is crucial to the continuation of the timber industry and to us hobbyists.
It's up to us to make sure that these local bodies are used appropriately.

[silentC]

Yes, that's another one of the little paradoxes we have down our way. We have waste management staff running around making sure that I'm not tipping grease into the landfills and at the same time a different arm of the same department is dumping mega litres of sewerage into the ocean.

Oh yeah, and then there's the tree preservation officer whose job it is to tell me I can't cut down any trees but his mate the bush fire consultant is telling me that I have to.

:confused:

[adrian]

Yes, that's another one of the little paradoxes we have down our way. We have waste management staff running around making sure that I'm not tipping grease into the landfills and at the same time a different arm of the same department is dumping mega litres of sewerage into the ocean.

Oh yeah, and then there's the tree preservation officer whose job it is to tell me I can't cut down any trees but his mate the bush fire consultant is telling me that I have to.

:confused:

A very good point. Although I would say it's a necessary evil. I think it was Four Corners this week who did a story on the health problems of natives in south america because of petroleum contamination of the groundwater. Little kids were swimming in the local creeks and their skin was coming off in chunks. People have no idea of the damage they do when they dump oil in storm water drains or on the ground at home.
As for the sewage being pumped into the ocean, the alternative for the local council is to raise rates so that millions could be spent on upgrading the primary and secondary treatment of the sewage. Problem is, I don't think the local ratepayers would like that so you are stuck with the cheaper alternative.

[silentC]

There is another alternative and that is to stop wasting the ratepayers' money on useless things like bush fire maps and public land use policies and try spending it on the things that really matter, like what to do with all the poo.

The really basic things are being overlooked because of pressure from the state & federal governments, the insurance companies, and the greenies. I suppose if they let the sewerage pile up enough, there will be little threat of a bush fire. Never mind the stench.

I think the purpose of a local council is to look after infrastructure and to leave the lofty ideals to others.

[Ashore]

I think you are being a little unkind to the envirinmental protection function of local government. If you have a factory that's dumping hazardous waste into a local creek you may finally get a response from state and federal bodies by the time the creek is clinically dead. That's why there is a need for it to be handled on a local level.
It's up to us to make sure that these local bodies are used appropriately.

You jumped too quickly It's up to us to make sure that these local bodies are used appropriately .
I am extremely careful and caring of the enviroment but I dont rush in and defend any and all groups that are supose to be pro green just because someone critizes them. The thread was on how councils can waste money & my arguement was that some departments are set up and do just that by running around answering frivolous complaints to justify their budget .




When you get a degree in liberal arts; do you get fries with that?