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 > Pendulum swing from globalization to protectionism? > Comments

Pendulum swing from globalization to protectionism? : Comments

By Vince Hooper, published 29/8/2017

In effect, QE is Monetary Socialism and has encouraged greater moral hazard since 2010.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Aidan's proto-communist economic theories again.

Aidan believes in totalitarian control of the citizenry; that governments control all money earned by their citizens. This from one of his comments in May 2016:

"Government money is government money, not other people's money. The government may choose to return it to the people (or not take it in the first place) but doing so has economic consequences."
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 23 May 2016 11:26:28 PM

Or they can tax, tax, tax and effectively enslave. Hey, it's the government's money.

Today he says:

"Globally, money always has to come from somewhere and always goes somewhere. So the only way the private sector can deleverage is for the public sector to leverage." Money mysteriously comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. Like a leaf in a creek. How profound.

Aidan, governments do not generate wealth. Nothing a government does increases the size of the cake. Governments actually COST money, particularly by massive expansion of the public service at vast expense. Every time a government interferes in a market, that market is ruined.

The "free market" poseurs in the Turnbull government - Greg Hunt, Scott Morrison, Kelly O'Dwyer, Scott Ryan, to name a few - have all supported government interference in the energy industry. They are in the process of destroying the energy market via ridiculous subsidies to wind and solar farms and compulsory renewable energy targets. And we now boast the most expensive electricity in the world (South Australia), with NSW, Victoria and Queensland in the top ten. We also know that South Australia's electricity supply is unreliable and that Victoria is following down that path with the closure of the Hazelwood plant.

Meanwhile, hypocritical politicians see nothing inconsistent in selling as much Australian coal as possible to countries which continue to expand their coal-fired economies at our expense.

There's no mystery about where money comes from, it comes from private enterprise, not from governments, from entrepreneurs and risk takers and to a lesser extent from investment, thrift and saving by employees.

The only risk taking governments do is going to an election.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 12:28:51 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
calwest,I merely stated the truth. Your labelling it as proto-communist shows your fear of communism has blinded you to what's really going on. And this blindness results in you making ludicrous (not to mention libellous) claims.

I do not believe in totalitarian control of the citizenry. According to the test at politicalcompass.org I'm in the Libertarian Left quadrant.

I do not believe governments control all the money returned by their citizens; I merely acknowledge that they have the legal power to raise taxes, and that when the tax is paid it legally ceases to belong to the people and instead belongs to the government (which should be accountable to the people, but that's a different issue). Obviously you can't handle this truth because you think it's too much like communism, but that is a mental deficiency on your part.

Today I had absolutely no intention of conveying any sense of mystery when I said money must come from somewhere and go somewhere. I could, if you really don't know, explain exactly where it comes from and goes. But for anyone whose ability to think isn't constrained by an irrational fear of communism, further explanation shouldn't be needed to understand that globally if the private sector deleverages, the public sector must leverage by the same amount.

calwest, ownership does not determine whether wealth is generated or not. If you doubt that, maybe you should have a go at explaining how a private hospital generates wealth but a public hospital doesn't? Or are you saying they both don't? If the latter, I think you have a poor understanding of what wealth is.

Also, you seem to be trying to conflate wealth and money. They're not the same thing.

Government interference in a market does not ruin a market. I agree the government's actions have had a negative effect on the electricity market, but that is the result of the particular actions, not an intrinsic outcome. If instead they'd intervened by providing concessional loans for renewable energy infrastructure, the outcome would have been positive.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 1:51:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aidan,

An "irrational fear of communism"? That's tautological. There's nothing irrational about it. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ulbricht...just keep adding to the list. Millions dead under communist regimes in the 20th century. Millions more living in fear day and night. Nearly half a million political prisoners in the soviet gulags. I'd suggest that if you don't have a very rational fear of communism, then the mental deficiency is entirely yours. Or you could tell us why communism is a Very Good Thing. Go on, give us a laugh.

On markets, can you give us an example of government interference in a market where the result was generally beneficial - you know, an "intrinsic outcome", not the result of "particular actions"?

Perhaps you'd like to start with some examples from Australian markets which had the "benefit" of government support for producer and manufacturer cartels. Or just skip straight to North Korea or Venezuela.

And good luck with your aptitude tests at politicalcompass.org.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 29 August 2017 2:56:04 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
Hi calwest,
I think you meant contradictory rather than tautological, but I contend that an irrational fear of communism is neither.

There are three reasons why your fear of communism is irrational:
1. Communism is not a threat to us. Almost nobody here wants it (I certainly don't) and there's no realistic way it could be implemented anyway.

2. Ruling by fear, killing many of your critics and taking others prisoner are tactics of totalitarian regimes rather than specifically communists. Indeed these things also happened in the name of anticommunism (e.g. in Soeharto's Indonesia). And not all communists are totalitarian. You've made the mistake of conflating communists with communist regimes, but most communists have never been in power. And never will be!

3. Your fear extends not only to communism itself, but also to sensible policies (and even mere observations) you misconstrue as communism (or protocommunism). You seem to have failed to realise that we can pick and choose the policies we support and oppose - whether capitalist, communist or anything else, we don't have to opt for the whole package!

Regarding government intervention in the markets, I think in most cases the benefit is dependent on the details of the government's action rather than being intrinsic. For example, even with something as apparently one sided as emissions standards, the costs can outweigh the benefits if they're set too strict.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you asked for "examples from Australian markets which had the 'benefit' of government support for producer and manufacturer cartels" as private sector monopolies are generally a bad thing - indeed one of the main reasons for government intervention in markets is to prevent private the public from being disadvantaged by such monopolies. Admittedly I used to support the single desk policy for wheat export, but I now concede I was wrong on that.

Even public sector monopolies tend to work better when they're competing against the private sector for at least some of their functions.

BTW politicalcompass.org doesn't test aptitude, so you've nothing to fear from giving it a go.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 2:12:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan

‘Communism is not a threat to us. Almost nobody here wants it (I certainly don't)’

Perhaps, but some food for thought …

A 2013 opinion poll (Russia's Public Opinion Foundation) found that 60% of Russians believed there were more positive than negative aspects to life in the former Soviet Union.
http://rbth.com/news/2013/10/12/about_60_percent_of_russians_see_communism_as_good_system_-_poll_30755.html

In a 2010 survey by the Pew Research Centre, 72% of Hungarians said that they were worse off economically than they were under communism. Only 8% said most people were better off.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/hungary-better-off-under-communism/

In a 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, 63% said their life was better under communism, while only 23% said that life was worse. 68% said that communism was a good system.
http://www.balkanalysis.com/romania/2011/12/27/in-romania-opinion-polls-show-nostalgia-for-communism

A 2011 Der Spiegel poll of people living in the former East Germany found that 57% believed life was better in the old East Germany.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-tragic-failure-of-post-communism-in-eastern-europe/23616
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 5:32:15 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
How lucky are those in communist countries to actually have a tangible yardstick from which to measure progress v regress.

We in the West have no yardstick and no one to blame but the politicians who created the insecure mess we now live in!

What Globalism has given 80% of the world unfortunate enough to be captured by its evil, is real true and abiding inequality, not the gay marriage variety presented by those wishing to snow the real issues of life for the majority, such as unaffordable housing and insecure employment.

Yep, I think communism sounds like a good alternative! There is a security attached to it, (if behaviour is attuned)!
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 6:45:21 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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