ttbn, if anyone else had said that, I'd've assumed they were being sarcastic.

Good article David.

I think our answer lies in our super. What I mean by this is that we should bite the bullet and stop peoples super being given to others to manage and have the government, overseen by a private board, control our super and use it for infrastructure.

While I accept some like myself at ten years pre retirement will loose, we have to have some losers to have a win in the long term.

The long term gain will be retention of all future assets with dividends/profits going towards retirement pensions on a 'as contributed basis' meaning the more you invest in super, the greater your retirement income.

Of cause it would be far more complicated than this, but the reality is that if we continue down the garden path, we will loose.

Can someone please explain to me why those on the right are so opposed to the government making long term investments?

Plantagenet,

Good lad, you've been studying up on guns!!
You seem to kndw now what an automatic weapon is; and given up on the "Adler" semi-automatic, lever action repeating rifle.
Congratulations.

How about this process;
At the next budget we just repeat last years budget except all
expenditure is reduced, say, 5%.
Problems in that of course, but there are problems anyway.
Main one, politically, of course is pensions.
Perhaps some pensions could remain unchanged, but other welfare payout
amounts reduced by more than say, 5% by means tightening entitlement.

If we don't achieve this one way or another, it will be enforced by a
much more brutal economic process called collapse.

Observe Venezuela !

Aidan

When you have understood, and can correctly represent, the economic calculation problem, you will be intellectual qualified to express an opinion on this topic, and not before.

Until then, you simply don't understand what you are talking about.

Both you and Foyle are displaying a creationist superstitious belief that is merely circular. Being 'sovereign' - an expression that Foyle does not define - does not confer immunity from the laws of physics, logic or economics.

All socialism is merely squalling for the teat, a belief in magic pudding, a belief in benefits without the need to confront them with costs to work out whether the expenditure is worthwhile, in terms of what had to be sacrificed to obtain it.

It is easy to refute your economic argument. All I need to do is ask you to prove the objective criterion by which you judge whether government has done
1. too much,
2. too little, or
3. just the right amount
of inflating the supply of money or money substitutes.

If we ignore the costs, anything will seem beneficial, and that is the top and bottom of your intellectual methodology: real kindergarten stuff.