Great to have someone "mentioning the war" - we really need to examine the expansion of GST. More sectorally targeted taxation must inevitably lead to more tax minimisation scheming - the only beneficiaries being the lawyers and accountants who produce the artifice behind each scheme. By contrast GST rates can be increased quite simply and off-sets provided (e.g. via the social security net) to allay concerns that the less well off will be worse off. But I doubt we live in a time where anyone in public life seeking voter support will have the intestinal fortitude to even broach the subject. More's the pity.

The fundamental errors that people make when evaluating why Labor does or does not pursue a particular policy are:
1. The mistaken assumption that Labor is a progressive party.
2. The mistaken assumption that policies are decided on rational grounds.
3. The mistaken assumption that Gillard is a member of the "Left" faction when such a beast does not exist in the modern parliamentary Labor party.
4. Expecting any real change in stance, policy etc in the near future.

Keynes was once asked why he was espousing a policy he had previously opposed. His reply: when the facts and circumstances change I change my mind: what do you do Sir?
Wayne Swan is no John M Keynes.

We, the taxpayers, ratepayers, roomers and roamers of this country are being done, done like a Sunday dinner with its frills and frolls.

It’s a double dipping. We have to pay for the politicians to write the Law and for the Economists to hold their hands at penning it.

Who of us cares what name you give to a Tax? GST, INCOME, or OUTCOME? We remain the same MUGs who must scrape to pay it.

A yes Minister, a No Economist and the paraphernalia their Servants all hung on us.

And we have to struggle on two feet until they bring us to all four at the do-gooders Palace's back door for a scrap of left-over.

Hell to you and your gun-enforced democracy. I’ll soon be in the home I have belonged since I was born, the immense Void, you dirty PARASSITES

Increasing taxation is not the answer.We have a $ 1.4 trillion economy andd each yr the average money supply increases by 3% for GDP + 3% for inflation. 6% of $ 1.4 trillion = $84 billion.Our State Govt banks + the Govt Commonwealth used to create some of our new money supply,debt free or the profits from interest reduced our taxes.

So in going from a $84 billion credit to an $ 84 billion debt,our Govts are in reality a %168 billion pa deficit plus interest.This is a debt of $15,000 pa for every worker plus interest.This is why we have to sell off Govt assests.We have to going into debt to build infrastructure.

We don't own the increases in our GDP,the private banking system does but virtue of creating the money to equal it.We can only manage 3% increase in GDP because the more growth we have,the more debt we incur.China's Govt banks create 80% of its' new money for growth as debt free infrastructure.China can grow at 10-12% and the debt based Western monetary system stagnates because debt = growth.China has a very inefficient banking system and much corruption but can out perform our economies because it can build infrastructure almost debt free.

The answer is to slowly reduce the fractional reserve system of banking ratio and bring back Govt owned banks.

Increasing taxes to service more debt to build infrastructure,will not see us progress,since our GDP increases = debt.

This is a must see. 'The Secret of Oz" by Bill still Last yr it won the Biff International award for best documentary.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g

'The Wizard of Oz' by L Frank Baum had deep economic meaning that was lost when important symbolism in the book was removed in the 1939 movie Classic starring Judy Garland.

Arjay, when are you going to accept that you don't understand a word that you write?

>>China's Govt banks create 80% of its' new money for growth as debt free infrastructure.<<

What exactly do you mean?

As it stands, that is a nonsensical statement. Which of course means that no-one can say "that's wrong", because in order to be wrong, it at least needs to make some sense. That sentence fails that simple test.

>>The answer is to slowly reduce the fractional reserve system of banking ratio...<<

Not really. You have the cart in front of the horse. The fractional reserve system actually acts as a brake - it limits the amount that a Bank can lend.

The key is simply that if we borrow less - that is, all of us, including government - there will be less pressure on the Banks to support that demand by creating debt.

By the way, the funniest thing about "The Secret of Oz" is that anyone takes it seriously. It is pure fantasy.

The second funniest thing about it is that it won the "Biff International award for best documentary" in 2010.

Beloit is a city in Wisconsin, about the same size as Dubbo, that has held an "international" film festival every year since 2006. It is run by volunteers, and is an extremely worthy enterprise.

http://www.beloitfilmfest.org/biffy-awards/2010-award-finalists-biffy-winners/

The award is actually called the "Biffy", not the "Biff International award". I'm sure that it has great prestige in Rock County, but I'd be careful about boasting about it too much. People might wonder why it didn't receive greater recognition. Like, say, at the Boulder Film Festival in Colorado.

Another Biffy winner at that particular festival was "Artois the Goat", the synopsis of which goes as follows:

"Lab technician Virgil Gurdies struggles to choose between his truelove Angie and his newfound quest to create the greatest goat cheese the world has ever known."

They're big on cheese, in Wisconsin.

http://www.eatwisconsincheese.com/wisconsin/history_of_wisconsin_cheese.aspx

Bless.

Correction Pericles.You don't want to understand anything I write because the truth hurts.Start by arguing basic facts.

Why should private banks create money from nothing to equal increases in our GDP? Answer that question.