The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Respect the dismal science: public policy needs some economics > Comments

Respect the dismal science: public policy needs some economics : Comments

By Tony Makin, published 15/9/2016

There are many examples of countries from Argentina to Zimbabwe where the demise of economics as a foundation for policy became a first step to economic demise.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Alan B.

While the amount of energy obtained from a few milligrams of thorium might theoretically drive you car for many years, it requires a much larger critical mass of Thorium and U233 to actually make a viable reactor. That would be something larger than your car would carry, although perhaps a not too large truck might suffice.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Saturday, 17 September 2016 2:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CORRECTION: I said: "Is that sane and rational to keep losing 30% on P&L bottom line EVERY YEAR?"

The figure is actually 25% LOSS, sorry for the mistake.

The point here is a simple one. The LNP Neo-Liberals said that taxpayers finds should not be directed anymore to the local Motor vehicle industry. Abbott et al said it wasn't THEIR JOB to support unprofitable "industries".

Yet no Government has ever given away $4+ billion a year, year on year of TAX PAYER MONEY to any MV industry nor any other business sector until the Residential Rental Property business sector arrived in town.

Those INDIVIDUALS have been getting ~$4 billion in Tax Breaks on a -25% Loss each and every year.

How is that sustainable and why are Taxpayers funding these people's wealthy retirements through both Negative gearing and the 50% CGT Discount?

There's a big ballyhoo now over the Government's deal for $6.3 billion in savings to pass parliament. The compromise deal, announced on Tuesday, will see the Turnbull government save $6.3bn over four years.

This equates to a measly $1.56 Billion per year, or an MINISCULE 0.38% reduction to the Annual Federal Budget Spending.

Whereas the Government could cut $10+ Billion per year with the flick of a pen and only wealthiest 1% to 20% of the population relying upon GOVT WELFARE ENTITLEMENTS would even notice it.

The side benefit of course is that over time the UN-Affordability of Housing across this nation would head in the opposite direction, helping everyone's Boat float a little higher.

Especially in combination with Banning all International Citizens, whose Govt does not allow Australians to purchase real estate in their nation, from buying property and businesses in Australia forthwith - again another flick of the pen.

My further retort to the mindsets of those who think like Tony Makin can be read here:

Psychology, Politics, Economics, Math, Ethics and Morality are inseparable!
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPY3VEN0ZDalVNekk

Contrary to what Makin asserts, Public Policy doesn't need more Economics in it - it simply needs some TRUE FACTS and HONESTY and MORALITY behind it - post haste!
-
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 17 September 2016 2:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm amazed at the vitriol this straightforward piece has attracted (actually, that's not true, this is OLO after all).

It seems to me that one of the major failings of our political decision-making process is that it is all too willing to ignore good, sound reasoning about what is needed in favour of giving people what they want, which is nearly always more reward for less effort.

The past 150 years has seen enormous social progress: real progress, not "reform", in which the aim is to deform possible good ideas so that they look the same as the old ones. Most of that genuine progress occurred before 1960 and laid the footings for the hippy movement and other "counter-culture" social change movements all of which were distinguished by a determination not to accept facts that didn't suit their preferred way of looking at the world.

That long period of sustained productivity growth that has almost all been brought about by technological change: we don't have improved prosperity because of "diversity", but because we have better machines year on year. The cause and effect are frequently confused in public pronouncements from on high. That increased prosperity has allowed social experimentation that could not be countenanced in earlier times, when the most important measure of a person was their ability to produce needful things with their own toil. Even being born to wealth was no guarantee of a sinecure: "gutter to gutter in 3 generations" was a serious warning of the dangers of giving children of wealth too much ease and comfort.

For 3 generations now we have been desperate to give every child as little toil and trouble as possible, which is a worthy aim in isolation, but it leaves us with a nation that has great wealth, most of which is wasted on trinkets.

Our politicians make much of public bickering over minor issues, because all that spoilt brats want to hear is "what's in it for me".

Thanks for the article.
Posted by Craig Minns, Sunday, 18 September 2016 8:26:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy