The election thread - Medicare Vs cost of living Vs OMG China! Vs housing Vs I'm not Trump! Vs prehistoric fish Vs nuclear energy Vs tariffs Vs AUKUS

Who will you vote for May 2025?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Labor

    Votes: 21 37.5%

  • Nationals

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Greens

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Independant (other than teals)

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Clive Palmer Trumpet of Patriots Shitshow

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Teals

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • One Nation

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Jacquie Lambie squad

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Total voters
    56
johnny said:
Rational decision making requires perfect information, perfect comprehension and reasonable alternatives that provide actual choice. That is rarely achievable.
Click to expand...
Perfect information and perfect comprehension have never been part of our world (and never will). You don't need to read every line of a contract to compare services. Consumers are better informed by metric shit-loads than they ever have been in the past. If someone can't get on Google, comparison websites, read umpteen reviews and then make a good decision there is just one reason: They are just bone f*cking lazy.

Making a table of your requirements, checking them to/against available choices to come up with a short-list of valid services is not rocket science.

BTW Australia does not have Anti-Trust laws - we have Competition laws.
 
scblack said:
Bank to bank fraud is minor compared to credit card fraud. Credit card fraud originates from many points, such as merchants, stealing card info, from overseas parties, brain dead consumers etc. The credit card transactions originate from anyone/anywhere and that creates the risk.
Click to expand...
The fees are still quite high even for card present transactions which have less of these factors. Risk doesn't explain the different interchange rates for credit and debit. It's the exact same technology with the exact same risks. Same for premium cards. Are platinum clients more risky?

And merchants generally wear the cost of fraudulent card not present transactions in addition to their higher processing costs.

Banks haven't done much to evolve past the inherently risky collection of magic numbers. Probably because the margins are too good.

If the price was prohibitive, consumers would seek alternate methods. That's capitalism, its not perfect, but its the best system we now have. If there was anything better/cheaper, people would use it.
Click to expand...
I think this just highlights the lack of better and cheaper. Consumers sometimes make the choice to save online transaction fees through bank transfers but it's slower because it involves waiting for manual confirmation.

But, with the exception of surcharges, consumers aren't billed for it. Banks can just issue consumers with cards, let them know that it's really easy and convenient and let consumer expectation drive the rest. Financial institutions can take advantage of their price opacity and non-uniform pricing. They can make it seem free by having enough larger vendors on lower rates that don't surcharge. They can then use this power against everyone else. It makes small business less viable because they're the party with the least power.

There's still plenty of money to be made just below prohibitive.

scblack said:
They are just bone f*cking lazy.
Click to expand...
Or time poor. Or have a number of competing priorities.

And that assumes you can even trust the comparisons and reviews. Many of them are just referral link aggregators. Maybe you'll do it for the big ticket items but you can't assess every transaction in this way.
 
we should go back to the old methods

1775493061622.jpeg
 
Kind of scary how many politicians and their followers blindly support him. Evidence doesn't seem to matter any more, or maybe it never really did
 
tubby74 said:
Kind of scary how many politicians and their followers blindly support him. Evidence doesn't seem to matter any more, or maybe it never really did
Click to expand...
"Character reference" in court cases annoys me... ("sure they were convicted of meddlin with kids, but they were always nice to me and an upstanding member of society/church")

100% \/\/\/
 
Last edited:
tubby74 said:
Kind of scary how many politicians and their followers blindly support him. Evidence doesn't seem to matter any more, or maybe it never really did
Click to expand...

Almost like kinda scary about how ignorant peeps are about the presumption of innocence.

Funny enough, this doctrine has been held paramount from the time of Paul, evolved under Blackstone, explicitly adopted by la Fayette as one of the fundamental rights of man and finally codifed by such as august body as the UN.

But I suppose they were crusty old white male colonisers so what the fark would they know eh?
 
F G said:
Almost like kinda scary about how ignorant peeps are about the presumption of innocence.

Funny enough, this doctrine has been held paramount from the time of Paul, evolved under Blackstone, explicitly adopted by la Fayette as one of the fundamental rights of man and finally codifed by such as august body as the UN.

But I suppose they were crusty old white male colonisers so what the fark would they know eh
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but given there's already been a lengthy civil trial in the federal court that found him guilty I think it's reasonable to question his high-profile supporters.

Not really sure what the relevance of "crusty old white male colonisers" is here? Are you suggesting BRS is being treated unfairly because he's a white male? I'd be interested to know what you mean by this.

1775776038057.png


This guy probably fits the definition of "crusty old white man" and he's the judge whose current verdict on BSR we have to accept.

But let's see what the criminal trial brings.
 
As you well know criminal and civil standards are night and day. On the balance of probabilities is not beyond reasonable doubt, it is nowhere near in fact.

On the balance of probabilities, Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead.

As to the crusty old white men, I refer to the great jurists and philosophers whom in this day and age are largely either forgotten or held in contempt, but as a result of their wisdom over hundreds of years we live in a realtively "free" society with rights, privileges and protections such as the presumption of innocence, and an extremely high standard of evidence required for the state/crown to deprive people of their liberty.
 
F G said:
As you well know criminal and civil standards are night and day. On the balance of probabilities is not beyond reasonable doubt, it is nowhere near in fact.

On the balance of probabilities, Schrodingers cat is both alive and dead.
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can demand that people presume innocence while dismissing the findings of a 100 day trial. If you respect the crusty old white men who developed these legal principles you can't pick and choose the bits you prefer.

To the original point: BRS' high-profile backers do not have a better insight into the matter than Justice Anthony Besanko.

Yes, a civil trial is different to a criminal one but comparing the outcome to Shrödingers Cat?

F G said:
As to the crusty old white men, I refer to the great jurists and philosophers whom in this day and age are largely either forgotten or held in contempt, but as a result of their wisdom over hundreds of years we live in a realtively "free" society with rights, privileges and protections such as the presumption of innocence, and an extremely high standard of evidence required for the state/crown to deprive people of their liberty.
Click to expand...

Which great jurists and philosophers are held in contempt? I really don't understand what you're getting at here?

If you support the rule of law, you respect the outcome of the civil trial.

The civil trial that BSR himself initiated.
 
Tubbsy said:
If you support the rule of law, you respect the outcome of the civil trial.
Click to expand...

Not to repeat myself however there is a vast chasm between the on balance of probabilities which is essentially a bees dick from a coin toss and the high standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why we don't generally allow serious criminal matters decided by one person and why courts of appeal and others are comprised a number of people, much like a jury.

He has not been found guilty of any criminal activity in a criminal court, until such time he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

You are more than entitled to believe he is guilty, I will wait for due process.
 
Presume innocence, of course, that's the law.

@F G Since you seem to know something about the justice system, were you aware that these prosecutions historically are not raised unless there is a very good chance of being successful? That probably swings your bees dick analogy a bit more than a bees dick towards beyond reasonable doubt, but we can only speculate and see what happens.

The thing that is bizarre, even if he is found guilty, many people will still use the "have you been to war" as something that automatically qualifies you to get away with murder. That's very fucked up. I know several people who have been to war, none of them think war crimes are ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top