Topic: Social polling via a game on a news site (Read 2766 times)

est · « **on:** 26 Apr 2010, 20:42 »

Hey, I played this silly news site game this morning

http://www.news.com.au/business/federal-budget/play-the-budget-game-to-experience-the-job-of-federal-treasurer/story-fn5dkrsb-1225856299210

and when it showed me the results I was surprised to find that it compared my results to the average. What also surprised me was just how different some of the categories were. For example, I thought I was kind of being bad for cutting funding to social services by about 20 out of 120 million, but it sems that other people cut it down to about half of that, 50 to 60 mil total.

The average for Miltary and Police were more than mine, and the entries for Education and Health were a bit less. So what the fuck, average Australia? I just don't understand you.

est · « **Reply #1 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 20:46 »

I think it's probably also worth noting that people have put almost double the amount of current funding into the mining industry, despite it currently being a booming industry and forecasts that it will explode stupendously. Like, this isn't an investment portfolio, people. There's no return on government grant money.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #2 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 21:09 »

Wow gee whiz I never knew balancing a federal budget for the 10th biggest economy in the world was so easy

EDIT: This is kind of fun but obviously it's far too simple to be truly satisfying i.e; I can sink money into "Fuel and Energy" but that sector covers both research into alternative energy and maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels!

est · « **Reply #3 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 21:35 »

We're the 10th biggest? Get out. I'm curious now as to how that is possible.

est · « **Reply #4 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 21:45 »

and yeah, it would have to be a lot more granular to be a decent "game" so to speak. But hey, it's a quick time-waster.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #5 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 21:47 »

I heard it the other day, it's a fairly recent development mostly to do with the way we have handled the GFC so well compared to others

David_Dovey · « **Reply #6 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 21:49 »

Anyway here is my budget, I came in with just over $5b surplus

Alex C · « **Reply #7 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 21:59 »

I think Australia was in the low to mid teens before the downturn if you go by GDP, so it's not really that weird to see it bumped up a few spots, I suppose. Plus, lists are an arbitrary thing that don't really tell full stories very well. The drop off between the US and everyone else is pretty immense depending on how you approach listing European Union. Unless the Governator had his facts wrong I seem to remember him mentioning that California is one of the ten biggest economies in the world if you include states in the mix. Once you get past Japan and I think Germany most of the first world economies are pretty close together.

est · « **Reply #8 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 22:08 »

Yeah, probably. California is pretty fucking huge and I think the nearest competitor to the US' 15 trillion (disregarding the EU) is Japan with about 5 trillion.

edit: just checked and California had a GDP of about 1.85 trillion in 2008, so yeah, no matter which list you go by it'd be 8th in the world.

Alex C · « **Reply #9 on:** 26 Apr 2010, 22:53 »

I haven't taken it, but just from looking at the categories you guys listed, I can tell you straight up that mine would basically be a big ol' "Fuck you!" to the Arts, Military and Mining/Manufacturing.

Johnny C · « **Reply #10 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 00:20 »

I tried to tax the fuck out of the rich and all corporations (because they'd be state owned) and then sink absurd chunks of money into the military, the police, and agriculture, but I wound up running a deficit! No wonder the Reds lost Vietnam or whatever!!!

est · « **Reply #11 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 01:08 »

Yeah I am not sure that the tax amounts are properly weighted.

snalin · « **Reply #12 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 02:26 »

I tried the pacifist communist setup: 100% taxes on everything, no defence, 80 mill in health, housing, education, welfare and "general public services", 40 mill on everything else except petty cash, which got the leftovers.

Reading the headlines was kinda fun, though; "of course the entire country should be proud of The Pacifist Communist"

KharBevNor · « **Reply #13 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 07:34 »

Quote from: Alex C on 26 Apr 2010, 21:59

Once you get past Japan and I think Germany most of the first world economies are pretty close together.

PRC passed Germany a while ago. 2009 IMF figures were:

1     United States    14,256,275
2     Japan    5,068,059
3     People's Republic of China    4,908,9822
4     Germany    3,352,742
5     France    2,675,951
6     United Kingdom    2,183,607
7     Italy    2,118,264
8     Brazil    1,574,039
9     Spain    1,464,040
10     Canada    1,336,427

Slick · « **Reply #14 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 08:01 »

Suck it, Australia.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #15 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 09:51 »

I am quite sure that the news on the radio said we were in the top 10! Maybe it is by another metric?

Inlander · « **Reply #16 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 10:12 »

Fuck it, as long as we're still #1 in the Southern Hemisphere who cares!

Take that, fucking South America. Yeah you heard me, New Zealand. Suck it, Madagascar!!

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #17 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 10:15 »

Quote from: KharBevNor on 27 Apr 2010, 07:34

Quote from: Alex C on 26 Apr 2010, 21:59
Once you get past Japan and I think Germany most of the first world economies are pretty close together.

PRC passed Germany a while ago. 2009 IMF figures were:

1     United States    14,256,275
2     Japan    5,068,059
3     People's Republic of China    4,908,9822
4     Germany    3,352,742
5     France    2,675,951
6     United Kingdom    2,183,607
7     Italy    2,118,264
8     Brazil    1,574,039
9     Spain    1,464,040
10     Canada    1,336,427

Inlander · « **Reply #18 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 10:47 »

Party-based economies don't count, Emilio.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #19 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 10:48 »

If they did Andrew WK would be head of the Federal Reserve

Inlander · « **Reply #20 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 10:59 »

axerton · « **Reply #21 on:** 27 Apr 2010, 23:54 »

I did this yesterday, but didn't think to save the me/vs average graph. But what is with the average person halving last years spending on Social Security and Welfare. I cut nearly 25% in order to throw a bit more towards health, arts, and energy, and thought it was a pretty screwy thing to do. but then I submit and I'm still way above average. Also the headlines said that I was still accused of making the dol too attractive. what the hell.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Social polling via a game on a news site (Read 2766 times)