nor is there much diff between the largesse of the labor and lib swine than that of this bloke.Originally Posted by The Dunster
just as shady (greedy) and capitalist as the rest yet held up as some sort of deity.
**** Bob Brown.
nor is there much diff between the largesse of the labor and lib swine than that of this bloke.
just as shady (greedy) and capitalist as the rest yet held up as some sort of deity.
**** Bob Brown.
Have you been hangin with The bobby Brown?
socialist of course. i see you have focused on the financial side.
I am forming my ideas from reading their policies.
http://greens.org.au/policy-platform
Like it or not the financial side is where the empirical testing can take place.
If spending falls so does income and when income falls the result is unemployment.
What can be more important than understanding that ?
Unfortunately - neither the Greens, the ALP, or the Coalition understand how the national accounting identities work.
Hence, they are all the same and controlled by the plutocrats.
Much the same way as the god squadders invented the devil - the Right created the left.
Same dog different leg action.
Here is an example from the link Hawk Provided about the Greens:
The ALP and the Coalition would each agree with this proposition and yet:"9.While government finances must be sustainable over the long-term, it is appropriate to stimulate the economy during economic downturns and save during economic booms. Government financing should be responsibly managed so as to minimise intergenerational debt."
We know that a monopolist issuer of money such as the Australian government and RBA have absolutely no budget / financial constraint in terms of their own money.
Their ability to spend is only limited by the goods and services denominated in that currency available to buy.
We also know that all tax liabilities of the non-government sector are payable only in this same money. This makes money tax driven - not the other way around.
We also know that the government budget is for a fiscal year and so it cannot possibly be a burden on future generations.
We also know that a government does not need to finance its spending nor does it need to borrow - because it has no budgetary constraint in terms of its own money.
Simple maths:
Government Surplus [Deficit] equals Non-Government Deficit [Surplus].
Not ****ing once have the greens accepted that the result of their policies would be mass unemployment and a lot of pain for no gain to anyone other than the one percenters.
If we look at the current Abbott government we will see that in terms of GDP they are the biggest spending government in Australia's history.
And yet interest rates are falling and inflation is trending downwards. [ It's a good result though by accident rather than good management]
The lot of them are clueless.
Last edited by The Dunster; 04-07-2015 at 12:14 PM.
That is an interesting point. Labor gets growled out a bit for this. Didnt Howard get our deficit right down during his time?
What do you mean by "our" deficit ?
If you mean the net debt of the private domestic sector then the answer is absolutely not. It actually increased.
If you mean Australian net indebtedness to foreigners [ net income account] then again the answer is absolutely not. Again, it increased.
If you mean did the Howard government force house holds to spend more than they earn then the answer is YES.
All Howard and Costello did was buy back interest bearing alternatives for money from the rich / elite bond traders. They also gave away a shit load of gold holdings for around $400 an oz - which based on the current market prices was a dick move for sure.
People seem to forget that under the rules of double entry accounting all accounts must sum to zero [debits = credits and / or deficits = surpluses].
So: If the current account is in deficit the only way the government can have a surplus is if the private domestic sector is in deficit.
If on the other hand the current account is in deficit and the private domestic sector wish to save [ surplus] then the government are up the shit [in their own terms] because of the Automatic stabilisers such as tax recepts falling and transfer payments increasing as welfare dependence increases.
Governments should never ever attempt to run surplus budgets when the current account is in deficit and certainly not when the private domestic sector wishes to spend less than they earn.
But it's really not even that complicated.
All you need to know is that Spending = Income - beyond that economics is just showing off some very piss poor mathematical skills which would make real mathematicians cringe.
Last edited by The Dunster; 04-07-2015 at 04:36 PM.
So how close are we to defaulting cause our (part B above) is spiraling out of control
Can't we just print more money?
Please explain.
it's even less complicated than that. Government via arrangements with RBA simply credit one account and debit another.
It all happens on a computer screen rather than a printing press these days.
The so called textbook model used by Treasury is not a realistic explanation of how things really work.
Simple example. The so called cash rate is determined by market forces "
Yeah right - that's why the RBA hold a meeting, decide what the rate should be - then go into the market and buy or sell securities to meet the target rate they nominated.
They can have any rate they want and nooooobody can stop them because their ability to maintain that rate can never be challenged because they are the monopolist supplier of the currency.
But don't think in terms of printing money - because it's not an accurate explanation of how things work.
Last edited by The Dunster; 06-07-2015 at 03:25 PM.
Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't pumping more money into circulation devalue the $ massively?
Let's talk about the real problem here, chicken twisties
Jaliens gives me the horn
It's a valid question. If the economy is at full employment then it would simply escalate prices.
However, if the economy was at full employment there would be absolutely no reason for the government to spend in excess of the economies capacity.
Given how much excess capacity the Australian economy has held for the past forty odd years it's simply not an issue.
Without writing a book the RBA also has a target rate of interest that it wants to maintain.
The banks we use hold what are called exchange settlement accounts with the RBA.
The RBA essentially [for our purposes anyway] increases the liquidity of these accounts to lower the cash / interest rate and decreases liquidity to increase rates.
They do this by offering banks an interest bearing alternative to money which to keep things basic we can call a bond.
So for your example the injection of money into the economy would put downward pressure on the cash / interest rate.
The RBA would not want the cash / interest rate to tend toward zero so they would seek to reduce the liquidity of the member banks exchange settlement accounts by offering the banks interest bearing bonds in exchange for the excess funds.
Banks gladly except the exchange, liquidity is reduced, interest rate rises back to meet the target rate and inflation is not a problem.
Real world example is Japan. Highest deficit spending as a percentage of GDP on the planet and yet they have a zero interest rate, low inflation and a relatively strong currency.
Commodity prices are the big driver of currencies and regardless of domestic fiscal policies if you make / sell things people want to buy then people buy them regardless.
Japan also have for the most part have a trade surplus so their spending habits don't seem to have made people shy away from the goods and services they sell.
Last edited by The Dunster; 06-07-2015 at 10:48 PM.
What about bacon flavour ffs - they were awesome and the bastards stopped making them.
Damn you APD.
You are dead set one of the weirdest dudes I've ever encountered and I mean that in the most respectful way I possibly can.
Thanks, I actually kind of understand the various factors that can be tweaked now. Cheers
I'd agree with that. I even shake my head sometimes at the shit I blurt out.
Last edited by The Dunster; 07-07-2015 at 10:22 AM.
Attn: snaek
I was given my bill for our private hospital stay.
Private health insurance was 100% worth the value. We "saved" money by going this way, on the birth experience alone. Not to take into account all the other non-birth inclusions it gives us.
This is just a fyi, as I assume you weren't asking the questions with the idea of multiplying in mind. But yeah..
OK
yeah but now you've got a kid and you have to spend all your money on that forever
ops:
OK
one of my dogs helped himself to his food bag. swelled up like a mofo. overnight vets = $1200 buckeroos
we will loose
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote