Well voxUnis I am economically naive also as I have just picked up
bits here and there.
China has been selling US treasury bonds but slowly. I guess they do
not want to scare the horses.

What I said about the German gold. They did get some of it back but
some of the bars had been recast so the serial numbers were then lost.
That suggests that they were someone else's gold.

From the reading I did today after I wrote that other post it seems
that gold is a pretty dodgy market place unless you have it your hand.

The difference between public dept and private dept, Tristan, is if you borrow on the private market, you are supposed to cover the loan with collateral.

Public dept is another matter. A Socialist party wants to win an election, so it says to "the poor" that if you vote for us, we will tax "the rich" and give their money to you. The "poor" begin to realise that they need not work in low paying entry level jobs, they can just be parasites and let "the rich" pay them a living. More and more "poor" people get in on the scam, and then ordinary working class wage earners begin to realise that the Socialists consider them to be "the rich."

The Socialists ensure their continued electoral support by importing dysfunctional people from dysfunctional cultures who are almost guaranteed to become economic dependents of the State. It is hardly surprising that the six largely Muslim electorates in Sydney now comprise the Labor heartland, while the working class Australian electorates now generally vote for the Libs, or Pauline.

The "poor" keep growing in numbers through birth rate differentials or immigration. The Socialist parties bribe the ever growing dysfunctional class to vote for them, and when they run out of money they simply borrow it and leave the problem for the next generation. The productive "rich" get taxed so much that they go somewhere else and take their wealth creating skills with them. That is exactly what happened in Greece and Detroit.

' Sole Parents are much maligned by the Right l but raising kids/social reproduction can be hard work. Expectations that sole parents can hold down work and raise young families simultaneously is probably sometimes misplaced - and unfair to the kids involved.'

quite ironic Tristan that socialist have largely encouraged the destruction of the family unit and now you claim the high ground again. Maybe if your godless ideologies were not so prevelant their would be far fewer sole parents and thus could be looked after better. Something that socialist rarely consider I suspect. Just more tax payer money for situations socialist dogma greatly contributes to.

LEGO ; There are workers on minimum or too-close to minimum wage. Child care workers, aged care workers, hospitality, retail, tourism, cleaning. All these areas are basically socially-essential. Yet a stock-broker who produces nothing useful can expect to be a millionaire ; Yet someone who deals with human pain, death and suffering on a day-by-day basis (eg: in aged care) is in virtual poverty. Under those circumstances surely it is fair to have a social wage - to smooth out the extreme differences in the labour market?

re: "the working class" , "the poor" and "the rich" - all these need to be viewed in perspective. The Liberals would like you to believe $150,000 is a 'pretty average wage'. But we're really talking about the top 5% and maybe less there. We're talking about the wealthy and 'the upper middle class'.

Its a Liberal/Conservative trick to try and turn working class people against the vulnerable ; and even to divide the most vulnerable and the working poor against each other.

What is needed in the place of this is real solidarity and a fair go for all. That should mean fairer welfare - lifting the truly vulnerable out of poverty. But it should also mean incentives for those currently reasonably-considered as working poor. Stronger labour market regulation, a stronger social wage , tax incentives, industrial rights and liberties for unions to help lift the working poor out of poverty.

LEGO, for you to brand the most vulnerable as "the dysfunctional class" smacks of contempt. Tell me: do you include the working poor in that category ; or do you only mean those with profound disability, mental illness etc? What would you have us do? Eugenics? Culling?

Yes, there need to be incentives for skill, effort, education, productive risk-taking and so on. Even Marxists such as Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky recognised this would be the case. And even under socialism. But you can have that without the extremes of poverty ; and without gutting social insurance and the social wage.

Also Runner ; Christian and Jewish teachings implore us to care for the vulnerable. Christianity especially embraces a kind of 'anti-materialist' posture for which there is RESPECT for the poor. But you argue for austerity against and contempt for the most vulnerable welfare recipients while assuming that 'God is on your side'. Arguing for a 'hand up' is fine. I would say on the basis of Marx's famous "from each according to ability, to each according to need". For people to contribute as best they can, and to receive what they need. Basic, material and social needs , including what is necessary in absolute and relative terms for social inclusion and a meaningful and fulfilling life.

' Christianity especially embraces a kind of 'anti-materialist' posture for which there is RESPECT for the poor.'

You ignore the fact that socialism leads to poverty, self entitlement and lack of dignity. Most socialist are very happy to give away other peoples money to the mess they have largely created. Really it is theft by another name. I suspect few of them give out of their own pocket. You really have no idea Tristan just sprouting humanistic garbage while taking the high moral ground.