Using super to buy a house is a crazy idea, which completely defeats the reason for superannuation.

“According to a 2013 OECD report, Australian's aged over 65 were second only to Korea” sounds highly unlikely, too. It depends on how people define 'poverty' and,stupidly, too many Australians expect to live their retirement years at the same standard they did when they worked.

If 'one in four' people are still paying off a mortgage after the age of 65, then they have been wastrels in their younger years. I they are renting, so what? There is no right to own a home, and Australia has always had a totally unrealistic level of home ownership compared with other countries.

“Estimates of what's needed in superannuation at retirement.... start at $500,000 and rise to $1 million.” Well, there's another bucket of bulldust, put about by the superannuation industry, and naively believed by people thinking that the are 'entitled' to have the same bells and whistles until the day they die. We are living in la la land. I know people living on nothing but the Age Pension who are more than satisfied with their lot, because they are realists who accept that they simply do not need the material things that people who want to profit from them say they do. Anybody or group telling people that they will not have enough to live on when they retire, are people who have something to gain from you

People also rightly figure that a dollar now is worth more than a dollar in the future, let alone in 20, 30, or 40 years' time.

It is ironical that on the one day we have an article about the 'retirement affordability problem' at the same time as an article on the government's constant inflation of the currency.

Quite apart from taxation, the government currently steals the average worker's life savings twice over in the form of inflation, and then has the gall to impose the superannuation industry on everyone, and then pretend to be concerned about the alleged retirement affordability problem.

The Australian obsession over investing in real estate is in turn a symptom of the fact that all other kinds of investment are so heavily regulated that it's much easier to invest in residential real estate - which is politically difficult to meddle with - and rely on the inflation bubble, than it is to invest in actual productive activity. I mean honestly, you'd need rocks in your head to employ anyone and then be treated as a class enemy by the accumulated anti-capitalist policies of the last 100 years. And who would provide for retirement by actually saving? You'd need rocks in your head.

The result is the whole smoke-and-mirrors economy of going into debt to buy lifestyle assets in real estate with a view to capital gain, minimising any profit to minimise governmental tax gouging, minimising savings to avoid governmental inflation thieving, and maximising expenses for tax deductibility. It's like, the *exact opposite* of productive and economic activity.

So with government having effectively nobbled both savings and investment, is it any wonder that so many Australian arrive at old age broke?

But obviously people are not going to work and save to provide for themselves in retirement if they are only going to be punished and exploited as class enemies for it, and forced to pay for the welfare mentality of others who aspire only to fall across the line and into the old age pension.

Perhaps we should try freedom for a change?

On an individual level, using super to buy a house is entirely sensible. Your standard of living would immediately increase and you'd be saving money all the time so you'd be no worse off in retirement. Indeed failing to use super to buy a house would be a crazy idea.

However, on a collective level, allowing super to be used to buy a house would push up house prices, making things even harder for homebuyers. It would also mean that more money was going into land speculation, and less money going into productive activity. So it is indeed a crazy idea.

But what if there were some way to allow super to be used to buy a house that did not push up house prices? We could gain the advantage to individuals without the collective disadvantage.

If we substantially shift the burden of taxation onto the value of land, land would no longer be seen as such a fantastic investment, and prices would rise a lot more slowly even with more money available. The only significant disadvantage would be to existing homeowners; to mitigate this the land tax would have to be phased in over decades, thus measures like allowing homebuyers to access their super may also have to be phased in slowly - but probably not AS slowly, because the knowledge that land will be taxed in the future might be enough to dampen house price growth.

"According to a 2013 OECD report, Australian's aged over 65 were second only to Korea as having the worst seniors poverty in the world, based on the percentage of seniors with incomes below 50% of the median income."
This merely highlights the idiocy of defining poverty relative to median income rather than standard of living.

________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine, I've found that those who go on about "inflation of the currency" have three things in common:

• They think they know a lot about economics.
• They actually know very little about economics
• They think the ability of the rich to maintain the value of their wealth while doing nothing is more important than the wellbeing of the population.

IOW they're Austrian School.
Everyone else has a basic understanding of what inflation is.

I'm getting pretty bored with the constant allegations of pensioners living in poverty in this country.
From what I've read around the traps it seems some people think our aged pensioners should be able to live a life of luxury in 3/4 bedroom homes,money for holidays and freedom to live wherever they choose, regardless of the costs of the specific area.
What few seem to understand is that all pensioners receive enough money to live on, whether they live in public housing, rent privately and receive rental assistance, or own their own home and have the ability to rent out bedrooms to supplement their income.
They also have the option to move to a cheaper suburb or town, or to share accommodation with others etc.
People need to think outside the square, look for alternative lifestyle choices and savour the fact that we live in a country that provides us with an income and free health care.

An income just 25% of the average male income, with 25% of that gone every month in mortgage payments. And although the car rego is along with rates subject to a very modest subsidy, they still need to be paid! The car doesn't run on fresh air, and our public transport is a single taxi that doesn't run after sunset!

An amalgamated council replaced our debt free entity, with one mired in derivative derived debt; to who we pay double and in advance!

With the only improvement, mayoral salary entitlements, which are now treble!

I have to pay to get my grass cut and other services, which can include a callout fee just to get a handyman to change a light bulb.

Medicine is subsidised not free! Today the laptop crashed thank to an industrious hacker, who left, it would seem a call back number, that I can call to recover my data and amenity? And for a small fortune! I bought the laptop for less!

Yes sure, we are better off than folks in Peru, the Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia, just to name some of the most glaring examples, or a stand out Venezuela, with more oil than Saudi Arabia!

And more poverty than also oil endowed Philippines? Venezuela a socialist (democracy in name only) dictatorship! The Philippines a capitalist democracy, run by the elite for the elite and of the elite!

I don't have to fossick through garbage just to eat or be steal or borrow to get medical aid or a safe roof over my head.

Not to worry, we've got the priorities spot on. With negative gearing, family trusts, capital gains subsidies and other pressing welfare maintained to the max!

Poor old Kevin Andrews, looking forward to absolute penury in retirement with a paucity public service pension and the very modest income derived from 123 negatively geared houses?

How will he and other politicians doing it tough, manage? Actions always speak louder than words, as does priorities! My heart bleeds!
Alan B.

Retirement affordability?

We had all better prepare for the times when our
income stops. We need to plan for where we're going
to live, how we are going to travel, where medical
and other services are accessible (and how we're
going to pay for them). How we're going to cope with
any physical disabilities. In other words planning
our own future where we don't rely on other people
to bail us out in times of difficulty is crucial.

People who don't plan are either selfish or not prepared
to save thinking - "she'll be right." Someone will bail
them out.
But often that just doesn't happen.

Rent a bedroom? To whom, the town bike, town drunk, neighborhood drug dealer, or an antisocial psychotic?

The last time I lived in shared accommodation was the last time I lived in shared accommodation! And as an early riser starting work at 4am, did not appreciate the drunken debauchery of next door neighbor in an adjoining room nor the guitar and loud raucous singing that only ceased at 2-3am!

I've scratched saved and sacrificed for thirty some years to own my own home! And because I understand arriving at retirement at the mercy of landlords is a virtual guarantee of poverty, but particularly for women!

I value my independence and freedom! Renting a room could see my humble hovel reduced to little more than a halfway-house for former inmates, and although everyone deserves a second chance, not inside a trashed home I've worked and sacrificed decades for!

Unlike some folk, didn't inherit it from somebody else.

It'd be great to be able bodied and paid a handsome retainer for fostering your own grandkids. And have a garden and chooks to help with that?

But a very different kettle of fish for an elderly pensioner, in say Sydney, where family and friends reside and where the cost of a single bedsit can be more than a single pension!

I'm tired of listening to an old self opinionated, derisory know it all, who needs to walk a mile or two in other folks shoes before rushing to judgement or unsolicited condemnation!
Alan B.

What utter rot. I have been retired now for 12 years, living a very enjoyable life on the pension. I don't have much money, but retired with a lot of stuff. My home, cars, tools, equipment & machinery, enough for my requirements. Much of it is old, & a bit tired, like me, but also like me, it works. With this buffer I am covered for the first 20 years of retirement at least.

I look on it as my camels hump. With the hump filled with everything you really need, you can cross a lot of deserts, before you have to fill up again.

Unless you are a bureaucrat, with our incredibly generous bureaucrats pension, the most important thing for a comfortable retirement is to own your own home. If you can't do that in a capital city, move to somewhere cheap. Places like Lithgow, or Jandowae offer great places to retire, at a budget house price.

Town councils with their ridiculous rate increases, tipple inflation or more are trying to ruin it, but we will win.

Retirees need to totally ignore the advice of all the financial hawks, out to rip a fortune off them. Get that little bit of real estate to call home, free & clear, & the rest is not too hard.

Good to see that there are still people who will not be brow-beaten by the likes of Ross Elliott into thinking that they are hard up. What a miserable, existence Ross must have, too concerned with money to be happy.

The baby boomer bubble, on which most current grey-tsunami fears are based (and distorted) - will have subsided by 2030.

The long-term concern is to reform the superannuation system. We need to get rid of the current income-linked government subsidy, which only benefits the permanently employed rich, who do not need government assistance to fund their retirement. The considerable savings generated can then be used to pull those currently outside the superannuation system - non-permanent employees, carers, self-employed, long-term unemployed and low wage earners - into a pension fund to assist their retirement. The latter would be based on the tax returns of those whose incomes are below a certain minimum level.

In addition, there is no government policy or political will to recognise catastrophic events that greatly reduce a person's ability to fund their retirement, despite their efforts over the best part of 40 years to play by the rules. Among these are bankruptcy and finding oneself unemployed at an age at which ageism renders them no longer employable - but because the minimum age-pension requirement is being continually raised, they are forced to live off their savings.

I continue to be baffled and amazed at the complete political indifference shown those who fall through the comfortable retirement cracks - but then again, I do, because politicians live in a totally separate retirement universe. Instead, government policy is to simply focus on rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking ship of a grossly unequal superannuation system.

Frankly, I'd prefer a return to the former system before compulsory superannuation. It was much more efficient, all-inclusive and much less costly to the taxpayer purse. But, of course, that system did not provide the finance industry with the enormous cash cow that it currently enjoys.

Incompetent Governance of Australia, lies at the bottom of this problem. To this problem there is no solution outside of revolt and revolution....Won't happen.

It is in the best interest of the wealthy to have the poor paying rent and living in unaffordable accommodation. The poor create wealth!

What is needed then, is a large base of the poor. Changing nothing will ensure this, and is the more likely scenario to occur with Government policy.

Personally, I think there is some merit in allowing people to access their super for a first home deposit. BUT, there must be strict guide lines.

Firstly, there must be a limit to what percentage of their super they can draw on, say 30%, and that must also be limited to a dollar value of say 20% of a $450,000 purchase.

Then, there must be a law that ensures what they take out must be replaced in say five years, or the time it would take to have saved such a deposit, and these contributions would be garnished from their incomes.

Now if they fail to replace their deposit, FOR ANY REASON then the asset must be sold off or borrowed against to repay the super. No if;s or buts.

If at any time the super contribution, or part there of, remains outstanding, then the asset can not be borrowed against for any reason.

Of cause like any housing scheme it would most likely see house prices increase as more potential buyers would hit the market.

I still feel a better option is a government interest free loan for ten years which is only provided to those who can show a perfect rental history for five consecutive years. This would be to replace the ridiculous first home owners grant which is no more than a tax payer funded gift to a selected few, often resulting in a huge financial win fall for which the tax payers gets nothing.

But, no matter what you do with housing, the risks far out weigh the potential gains. Hard work is the only real answer to housing affordability. That, and a scaled down apatite for the Mcmansion so many call a first home.

rechtub

In terms of your latter option, from my recollection of my days as a tenant, landlords were utterly ruthless in their dealings with the lower-classes who rented from them. Obtaining a high-grade rental history in order to qualify for a home grant creates a power base for tenants to accept whatever injustices their landlords wish to throw at them.

As for hard work being the only answer to housing affordability, this does not address the fact that Australia's housing affordability is one of the highest in the world. People on low or unstable incomes can work their butts off and grovel to their landlords ad nauseum and not get within coo-ee of a house deposit.

Aidan

Ho hum. No reason or evidence for your ad hominem assertions, situation normal.

If you had read or could actually represent Austrian economic, you might be onto something.

As it is, your belief that the government creates wealth by printing paper is mere irrational superstition. Gibberish. Credulous government-worship.

But then, you don't do rational, remember? You're still trying to squirm out of your premise that laws are not enforced, remember?

You have failed to answer by what objective criterion you know what the appropriate level of inflation is - because you don't know because your state-worshipping belief system is superstitious rubbish.

And you have failed to answer by what objective criterion you know whether any given government economic intervention is justified and how you know, remember?

Your technique - ignoring costs of government interventions you advocate - consists only of failing to account for the same quantity on both sides of the equation = gibberish.

The irrationality of your premises invalidates your opinion on political economy.

But presumably according to your line of reasoning, taxation and inflation do NOT reduce a person's ability to provide for their retirement?

Yes? That's the proposition you're defending this time, is it you clown?

Killarney

Post proof of your having provided housing to people at below market rate at your cost.

While ever you are in favour of any of the policies that cause the situation you are complaining about, including tenancy laws that prevent landlords from being able to recover all the costs of damages from tenants, capital gains tax, income tax, GST, and so on, you have no basis for complaining against it.

Socialists and leftards are so genuinely stupid that they can't understand that if you get the government to attack and expropriate landlords, based on your stupid marxoid slogans, you end up with LESS housing affordability, not more. Complete morons

Jardine,
I see you're still accusing people of ad hominem while yourself resorting to lies and strawmen.

What I posted about Austrian economics is an honest opinion based on fact. But if you can find a genuine counterexample, I'm open to correction. So tell me, do you think the ability of the rich to maintain the value of their wealth while doing nothing ISN"T more important than the wellbeing of the population? And if so, can you give me an example of a policy you support that favours the latter over the former?

Some of your own ad hominems are downright libellous! I do not worship the government and never have, though I do acknowledge the great influence the government has on the economy. and make no apologies for wanting the government to use that influence.

I have never claimed the government creates wealth by printing paper - or at least not to any great extent, nor in the superstitious way you imagine I do. Wealth is created by work and trade. (Technically work does sometimes involve printing paper, but I know that's not what you mean). But opportunity to work is often limited because the willingness of employers to take more people on is limited. Increasing the money supply results in more opportunity to work.

Do you comprehend my explanation? If you like I can go into more detail about how increasing the money supply results in more opportunity to work, but you do seem rather slow on the uptake; if at this point you still believe I worship the government or think that it creates wealth by printing paper (to any substantial degree) then I'm not going to bother; I've got better things to do online than talking to a brick wall!

And no matter how much you try to squirm me into the premise that laws are not enforced, you won't succeed. I believe the governments use of violence (action with the intention or likelihood of causing injury) should be limited to self defence and the defence of others. That doesn't prevent the law from being enforced.

Killarney, landlords have been forced to be ruthless because if we dare take our eye off the ball so as to say, we can stitched up in a flash from a seasoned tenant. In fact, enants have more rights than landlords.

However, my proposal only refers to the on time payment of rent, much like an on time loan repayment, because if one pays their rent on time, every time, they could be classed as a low risk borrower.

The problem with the first home ownes grant, is that it is only ever used once, and, given many use this as their sole deposit, then sell their house three years later for a $50 grand profit, thats a huge win fall considering they came to the table with nothing.

My system on the other hand would see the 'loan' be reused time and time again so many can benefit. All that is needed to qualify is a clean rental record.

The important thing is to get into the market as soon as possible.

A long time ago my sister in law & her husband had $2000. They used it as a deposit on a block of land in outer Sydney at $15,000. 18 months later they moved to Queensland, & sold their block for $35,000. After paying off their loan they had the deposit for a home.

Today that home is worth well over half a million. I have seen this story repeated many times, & have experienced it myself. You have to get on the ladder to be able to climb it, starting at the bottom is not too bad, as long as you get started.

If this idea of I presume loaning people their own super interest free allows more to get on the ladder we may get back to that 70% home ownership.

Jardine,
You're making the mistake of equating rationality to conforming with your assumptions.

You don't seem to comprehend that there are dozens of variables affecting inflation, not all of them readily measurable, and there is no single criterion to find an ideal rate (and nor do I have the ability to simplify it down to a formula). IMO the most useful criterion is the potential increase in employment in all regions, but even that isn't a good basis for decision making if considered in isolation. The inflation rate itself and its rate of change are also very important indicators, but knowing the reason for the changes is of enormous help to determine what's best to do about it.

Does all this sound like gibberish? Is it all too equivocal? Fear not, because at the moment it's quite simple: the relatively high unemployment, high underemployment and low CPI all point to more expansive policy being needed. Of course the drawback to that, if monetary policy is used, is the risk of a housing bubble. But fiscal policy can be used to stimulate the economy at very little inflationary cost, and has the advantage that it can be targeted where it's most needed.

The more general case whether economic intervention is justified depends efficiency and its effect on production. Again there are many variables and modelling is often needed. I think the best measure would be the ratio of the internal rate of return to the regionally appropriate interest rate, though I don't think there's yet any consensus on how to calculate the RAIR or what timescale to use for the IRR.

I don't ignore the costs of government interventions, but I recognise they're very often much smaller than the benefits, whereas you irrationally assume they're at least as big.

Jardine (continued)

The question of whether taxation and inflation reduce a person's ability to provide for their retirement is far more complex than it initially appears. Inflation reduces the value of cash, but generally only slightly, and how many cash based super funds do you know of? AIUI in Australia most of the money's invested in equities. And all other things being equal, of course taxation would reduce people's ability to provide for their reteirement, but all other things aren't equal; the things the government spends the tax money on may reduce the amount of money needed to maintain a certain standard of living in retirement, and indeed may also enable them to get better paying jobs. So I can not give you a definitive answer.

Aidan

The straw man is all your own, and as usual you are equivocating on all points:

1. government violence is not confined to self-defence and defence of others, so you need either to admit that you support aggressive violence and its ethical consequences, or renounce your support of government economic interventions that violate property rights.

2. You do not identify who you mean by "the rich": pure marxoid strawman all the way down.
But even to take the reductio ad absurdum - the theoretically richest, idlest, person - you neglect the fact that *he doesn't have to invest his wealth - he can alway consume it*. You are back to the Marxist assumption that the existence of private investment somehow proves that the capitalist impoverishes the poor, and proves an anti-social act. But if that assumption is true, why not nationalise all capital? According to your theory - or rather assumption - it will make society better off. It's you who need to get a grip on the basics of economics.

3. Either you're telling us that inflation *increases* the real purchasing power of money and makes society economically better off because it increases the amount of real goods that people can buy; or not.

Which one is it? So far you're having a bet each way.

"So I can not give you a definitive answer."

Thank you for conceding that you cannot justify any policy of inflation; and cannot fault my take on the economics; or my critique of your lack of knowledge.

The fact is: it's obvious. Government, by taking away a huge proportion of the earnings of workers during their working life, sends millions of Australian into retirement broke.

This cannot be justified by airy gestures at the supposed net benefits of inflation and taxation without coming to terms with the economic calculation argument, which you have already admitted you don't understand.

“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” by Ludwig von Mises
https://mises.org/system/tdf/Economic%20Calculation%20in%20the%20Socialist%20Commonwealth_Vol_2_3.pdf?file=1&type=document

Jardine:

1. I said I thought governments SHOULD restrict their violence to self defence and the defence of others. I didn't say that was the status quo.

1.1 The law can be enforced WITHOUT resorting to actions with the likelihood or intention of causing injury. Although you may consider such enforcement to be "aggressive violence" I do not, and I contend most of the population wouldn't either.

2. By "the rich" I meant those who already have substantial wealth. But I've no wish to waste time arguing semantics; feel free to use a different definition if you want.

2.1 Rather than addressing the argument, you seem to be criticising me for making it.

2.2 You're tearing into another strawman! I'm not arguing against private investment, nor the rich, but policies which benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.

3. Inflation itself, by definition*, decreases the purchasing power of money.
However the policies which cause inflation can make society economically better off because they increase the amount of real goods that people can buy. Haven't you noticed people work more in the boom and less in the bust?

*I know Austrian economists tend to use a different definition of inflation, but they tend to revert to the conventional definition when explaining why it's a bad thing, so my point stands.

3.1 Expansive economic policy makes society economically better off (and only causes a small amount of inflation) when the economy is below capacity, but when economy reaches capacity it causes far more inflation and does very little, if anything, to make society economically better off.

A complication is that the economy reaches capacity in some regions before others. Governments are able to target spending to address this, which is one reason the use of fiscal policy is more effective than monetary policy alone.

3.2 A very important part of the government's role is to increase the capacity of the economy.

3.3 Do you now comprehend that the reason I can't give a simple answer is because the answer depends on the context?

(tbc)

Aidan

You're contradicting yourself.

Jardine,

It is not actually myself that I'm contradicting; it's just your assumptions.

As for the rest of your point 3:

3.4 What you regard is obvious is actually simplistic crap! In fact I notice you're doing what you've falsely accuse me of:
Your technique - ignoring [benefits] of government interventions - consists only of failing to account for the same quantity on both sides of the equation = gibberish.

In this case, if you haven't worked it out yet, the other side is that the government, by paying pensions, prevents millions of Australians from going broke in retirement. And in some cases the government is what enabled them to make so much money while they were working.

3.5 As for your take on economics, I'll be generous and give you two out of ten. You understand some of the concepts, but most of your opinions are based on ludicrous assumptions and extrapolations. And you fail to understand that being unable to calculate a precise value doesn't make the value zero.

3.6 I certainly don't want to get rid of markets, so Mises's rant is irrelevant. I've got nothing against economic calculations - indeed I very much approve of them when they fit the situation and avoid false assumptions, for then they would provide a good basis for political and economic decision making. But calculations based on false assumptions are often worse than useless, as they're used to convince people to support harmful actions. And useful conclusions about government intervention in a market economy cannot be derived from a critique of a form of socialism that most socialists now reject!

You're contradicting yourself, and begging the question

Contradicting myself, Jardine? Then perhaps you'd care to provide evidence?
I've numbered my sections, so which are contradictory? Or what have I previously said which contradicts them?

Before answering, try rereading what I've written, for ITYF what they really contradict are the false assumptions that you've made about my position.

As for begging the question: in the post I was responding to, you asked two questions. The first, in section 2, I did not answer because it was conditional on a false assumption. The second, in question 3, I answered: I explained that while inflation itself decreases the purchasing power of money, the expansionist economic policies that cause inflation can also increase purchasing power; and I briefly explained the circumstances in which they do.

If any of my answers are unsatisfactory, you're welcome to ask for a more detailed explanation.

But what you seem to be doing is accusing me of logical fallacies to avoid seriously considering the arguments I make. I suppose that's a good technique if you want to avoid learning anything. But if that's your objective, an even better technique would be to ignore it completely.

You’re contradicting yourself by saying you don’t support the use of aggressive violence, and then supporting all the government interventions you advocate. Whether government "should" confine itself to defensive force is irrelevant; *in fact*, it uses its monopoly of force and threats to enforce anything it wants, including the violation of liberty and property for non-defensive purposes. The law defines crimes of violence as anything from common assault upwards – and common assault doesn’t even require touching, let alone injury. And government’s ability to enforce law or policy without threatening bodily injury, presupposes that you’re going to submit and obey at their first threat – otherwise they’ll escalate, and if they do, they’ll threaten bodily injury, up to and including tasers and shooting. If this were not so, obeying the law would be voluntary – you’d just have to escalate disobedience up to the point at which the state renounces violence. This doesn’t happen, which means, you’re wrong.

So you’re contradicting yourself saying you don’t agree with aggressive violence when you do, you’re equivocating by using a different definition for government than for others and hence using a double standard, and you’re begging the question because
a) your limitation of force presupposes a governmental right of further escalation to make good their first order, and
b) the use of even limited force is justified for your economic ends, in the first place.

Your defining of “the rich” as those with “substantial” wealth does not avoid the critique I have made of your marxoid reasoning. The problem isn't the semantics, it's the economic theory. You need to understand and deal with the issue, not evade it by merely running out to another arbitrary definition that begs the same question.

The rest of what you say is also just a welter of self-contradiction and question-begging too.

It is enough for me to point out that you’re arguing that inflation reduces the purchasing power of money, and that it does not; which is a self-contradiction.

If you want to argue that inflation does and it does not increase the purchasing power of money, at the same time, that's a self-contradiction. And if you want to argue that it does and it doesn't at different times, then you need to prove it. Referring off to a bunch of variables is not an “explanation” - it only begs the question. In any event, you have admitted that you can’t say when it does, which is also a self-contradiction.

You do this every time. I point out the illogic and unethics of your support for arbitrary power and violations of liberty and property, and you just circularly affirm and deny that you’re doing it in a garbled welter of self-contradiction, question-begging, smarmy ad hominem, and misrepsentation. And you *still* haven't read the economic calculation argument, have you? Last time you gave a garbled paraphrasing of wikipedia, and concluded that the economic calculation problem DOES NOT EXIST if anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world owns any private property.

Yes, it’s gibberish. I’m not going to waste time doing further analysis of your illogic. That’s what you should be doing before you post, let alone presume to talk down to me about economics.

If what you’re saying were right, then counterfeiting could conceivably be an instrument of monetary policy to help with the retirement affordability crisis, because inflating the supply of money substitutes supposedly makes society as a whole richer. You’re just making a complete fool of yourself.

Jardine,

Firstly, there is no contradiction in wanting the government's ability to use violence restricted and supporting government action to improve the economy and people's standard of living even if it isn't satisfactorily restricted. Similarly there's no contradiction between wanting to end our reliance on coal for generating electricity and using electricity. Nor for wanting the GST abolished (as I do) and paying it. Treating everything as conditional on things being done your way is likely to make you severely worse off, and is not even an effective way of changing things.

Secondly, the conditional threat to use violence in self defence or the defence of others is usually sufficient to prevent the situation from escalating.

Thirdly, I am not using a double standard. You're the one equating "violence" with "crimes of violence". AIUI assault isn't actual violence but the threat of violence; the actual violence is battery. Whether assault is classified as a crime of violence is irrelevant to my argument.

Now, exactly what question am I presupposing when I say that the use of even limited force is justified to enforce the law?

Your absurd critique of my "marxoid reasoning" because I dared to mention "the rich" appears to be an example of the tu quoque fallacy.
But if you really get that upset about the rich, I can rephrase the question without mentioning them:
So tell me, do you think the ability of the ANYONE to maintain the value of their wealth while doing nothing ISN"T more important than the wellbeing of the population?

As for the apparent contradiction regarding inflation:
Inflation reduces the purchasing power of money.
Inflation tends not to reduce the purchasing power of people, as people are usually paid more to compensate for inflation.
Expansionary economic policy, which can result in inflation, can also have the result of greatly increasing the purchasing power of people. How much of each effect it has depends mainly on how much spare capacity is in the economy.
I hope you now understand my position even if you disagree with it.

I'll answer your other post tomorrow.

Dear Aidan,

«Secondly, the conditional threat to use violence in self defence or the defence of others is usually sufficient to prevent the situation from escalating.»

You may be interested in the "non-violent" Jewish way to kill people, based on Sanhedrin 81b - http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_81.html

When one is guilty of repeatedly breaking a Jewish law that is punishable by death, but cannot be executed for technical reasons (for example, only female witnesses), they are locked up in a tiny cell that doesn't allow them to lie down or even sit comfortably, then first they are given only little food and water so their stomach shrinks and subsequently they are given only barley, lots of barley with no water, which causes their stomach to explode and they die of indigestion/suffocation.

Surely according to your (and theirs) system of thought, such death would not be violent: one was made very hungry then offered barley, but they didn't have to eat that barley - their death was a direct result of voluntarily eating that barley, right?

“Firstly, there is no contradiction in wanting the government's ability to use violence restricted and supporting government action … even if it isn't satisfactorily restricted.”

Yes there is. You both denounce and advocate the use of violence to get what you want = contradiction.

Nor is the issue whether government action etc. “even if violence isn’t satisfactorily restricted”. It’s whether government action etc. USING such violence = contradiction.

And the issue is WHETHER government action does improve the economy so you’re begging the question.

“Secondly, the conditional threat to use violence in self defence or the defence of others is usually sufficient to prevent the situation from escalating.”

So you’re contradicting yourself. You agree that in advocating your economic policies, you do rely on the implicit condition that the government can escalate the violence to bodily injury if first threats are not obeyed.

“AIUI assault isn't actual violence but the threat of violence; the actual violence is battery.”

Not correct. If A threatens to stab B with a knife, but doesn’t actually stab him, that’s still a crime of violence. Same with assault. A threat to bodily harm someone, by someone who is willing and able to carry it out, is still an act of violence. That’s not me saying that. That’s the gumment. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to exempt the gumment from its own definition of violence, which is a double standard, which is what both
a) the gumment, and
b) you
are doing.
Therefore the gumment’s definition of crimes of violence is relevant.

“So tell me, do you think the ability of the ANYONE to maintain the value of their wealth while doing nothing ISN"T more important than the wellbeing of the population?”

Your begging two questions which I have already identified.

If you can tell me what they are, and answer my prior questions first, I’ll demolish your fallacious eat-the-rich marxoidism.

If you can’t or won’t, there’s nothing to talk about: you’ve lost the argument.

Your self-contradictions are not redeemed by a parting assertion of privileged and unspecified knowledge on your part.

Jardine,
My "fallacious eat-the-rich marxoidism" is a figment of your imagination. I have no wish for you to waste even a second demolishing your own silly stawman. I'd rather you ceased being an idiot. It really shouldn't be that hard: just stop assuming that if someone posts A it means they think B.

Regarding the claim about whether assault requires actual violence: whether something involves actual violence is NOT the same as whether it's classified as a violent crime.

Regarding your alleged contradictions: I want capable government, as do most people.
It is possible to have capable government that restricts its use of violence (that is, actions intended or likely to cause injury) to self defence and the defence of others, and I support such a restriction (and therefore totally reject your equating government action with violence). However I do not regard this restriction as a prerequisite for supporting capable government. Without capable government there's likely to be far more violence.

You do this every time! You make an illogical accusation that my position is illogical and unethical, I explain why it isn't, and you reject my explanation; sometimes due to your own incredulity, sometimes because of your arrogance, sometimes because of poor comprehension (such as your claim that I "do rely on the implicit condition that the government can escalate the violence to bodily injury if first threats are not obeyed", when actually the condition for escalation would be if the suspect endangers someone). You always want the burden of proof to be entirely on me, but it is almost impossible to prove something to someone who can't follow a logical argument.

You criticise questions to avoid answering them. If you think there's never any conflict between the wellbeing of the population and people's ability to maintain their wealth by doing nothing, by all means say so, but you can still answer the question as a hypothetical.
You seem to want to bog the debate down in trivialities. It often seems like you're actually trying not to understand what I have to say! Is that the case?

Jardine (continued),
You keep droning on about The Economic Calculation Problem. I hadn't heard of it before you first mentioned it, so yes, I did look it up on Wikipedia. And I found why I hadn't heard of it before: it was totally irrelevant, as it relates to replacing markets with central planning, which nobody's proposing. When and where markets exist (not merely if private property is owned) it's all moot, because they solve the problem. That doesn't mean economic calculation's not required to determine the effects of the governments action. But allocating resources to production is not the problem in a market economy that it would be in a command economy.

Would you like me to post a link to Keynes's General Theory? I doubt you'd want to read it, but at least it's relevant to the discussion, unlike the Mises link you supplied.

Regarding counterfeiting, I have heard it claimed that it revived the Portugese economy at one stage. But governments generally don't let counterfeit money stay in circulation, nor compensate those who innocently acquired it. Therefore counterfeiting will end up making people worse off. Plus if the government does its job properly, it will ensure there's enough genuine money in circulation to ensure there's enough spent to keep people employed, and the direct benefit will flow to the people (unlike counterfeit were it flows to the counterfeiter). As long as the country has its own fiat currency, the government never has to worry about running out of money or eliminating its domestic debt.

We seem to have trouble understanding each other's positions. I'd like this to be a constructive discussion, where at least one of us learns something. To that end, I'd like to propose three rules of debate:
•When you agree with something your opponent says, say so and don't ask him to justify his position.
•When you don't understand your opponent's position, say what you don't understand and ask for clarification.
•When you think you do understand but disagree, say so and point out any false assumptions or reasoning errors.

Can we agree to this?

Aidan

Whether you regard assault as non-violent is irrelevant. The fact is, the government does.

So you're contradicting yourself.

As for your idea that the economic calculation problem is: "irrelevant, as it relates to replacing markets with central planning, which nobody's proposing."

Wrong.

"When and where markets exist (not merely if private property is owned) it's all moot, because they solve the problem."

Wrong.

So you haven't understood it (probably because your source is wikipedia), blandly assume that it can't exist in practice, and then presume to talk down to me about economics.

You have learnt nothing from my offer to disprove your economic theory, or rather circular assumptions, and are still begging the question of the beneficence of the economic policies you advocate.

So you've lost the argument twice over.

The problem isn't that I don't understand you. The problem is that I have repeatedly proved that what you're saying is logically incoherent, and your only response has been more of your endless round of self-contradiction and question-begging. I don't know why you do it.

If you want me to continue with the discussion, you need to
1. admit that even if government complied with your limits on power, which it doesn't do and never even claimed to do, you would still be involved in advocating aggressive violence against the person and property of others; and hence are contradicting yourself in disavowing this fact. You need to stop denying the truth.
2. come to terms with the proposition that the economic calculation problem applies to the extent of the governmental intervention. I'm not asking you to agree with it. But you need to *understand* it and deal with it, which you haven't done.

Otherwise we'll just have to leave it on the basis that you have lost the argument.

I mean here we are, after all these discussions, and you’re still dancing round and round and round in circles trying to PRETEND AS IF you don’t understand that the enforcement of law and policy
1. is by the initiation of force and threats
2. is by actions that government itself defines as violence
3. is not limited to actions in self-defence.

You have argued, and squirmed, and evaded, and equivocated, and contradicted yourself, and got the facts wrong, and lost, and lost, and lost, over and over and over again.

And yet here you pop up again as if you have no understanding of this, and AS IF the problem is a want of understanding on my part. I don’t know whether your denial is motivated by stupidity or dishonesty, or what.

So let’s settle it once and for all: does the enforcement of law and policy involve the initiation of force and threats which the government defines as violence; or not?

Yes?

Or no?

Jardine,
"Whether you regard assault as non-violent is irrelevant. The fact is, the government does."
That makes no sense. AIUI assault is the threat of violence. Neither I nor the government regard it as non-violent even when no actual violence is involved.

"Wrong."
Which part? That the ECP doesn't relate to replacing markets with central planning? Or that nobody's proposing to do so?

"Wrong."
What evidence do you have that markets don't solve the ECP?

You seem to be basing your claims on nothing more than Salerno's opinion; a highly illogical opinion because it fails to take into account the inherent biases the market has towards the short term and towards the interests of those who are already wealthy. There are also sometimes social, environmental and macroeconomic externalities.

Regarding your offer to disprove my economic theory, the accusations you've previously made demonstrate that you don't even understand what my position is. "Proof" based on false assumptions is worthless; it proves nothing.

And I'm not begging the question; it's just that I've barely started to explain it because it's so hard to get you to comprehend what my position is, as you seem to be more keen on making false assumptions than to discuss it honestly.

Until you understand my position, you have no credibility demanding unilateral conditions for continuing. But for the record:
1) If government complied with my limits on power, it would not commit any acts of violence except in self defence or the defence of others, so your conclusion's false. You appear to be shifting the goalposts by trying to include violence against property, though it's not clear exactly what you mean.

2) I accept you have sufficient cognitive dissonance tobelieve the word of one particularly stupid economist that the ECP can be extrapolated to the extent of all government intervention.

"does the enforcement of law and policy involve the initiation of force and threats which the government defines as violence; or not?"
Typically but not necessarily.

However: the vast majority of government action isn't based on violence,.
The government prevents more violence than it initiates.

""Whether you regard assault as non-violent is irrelevant. The fact is, the government does."
That makes no sense. AIUI assault is the threat of violence. Neither I nor the government regard it as non-violent even when no actual violence is involved."

My bad, sorry.

What I meant was, whether you regard assault as non-violent is irrelevant. The fact is, the government considers it be violence.

Now may I repeat my question: does the enforcement of law and policy involve the initiation of force and threats which the government defines as violence (except when the government does them to enforce law and policy)?

Yes?

Or no?

Jardine,
The government classify assault as violent. So do I.
But that doesn't mean it necessarily involves any actual violence.

Now regarding your repeated question:
The enforcement of policy generally doesn't require the initiation of force nor threats of force.

The enforcement of law can require the initiation of force or threats of force. It's not an intrinsic requirement (except in defensive situations) and there are legal restrictions on the amount of force that can be used (though as I've said, I'd like them to be stricter).

Use of force is common in response to violent crimes, but far less likely in response to non violent crimes.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,
I'd heard of a similar method being used to kill insects, but I hadn't heard of it being used against humans before.

I certainly wouldn't classify it as non violent.
The actions dubiously labelled voluntary I would classify as non violent. But the execution method is clearly intended to cause (fatal) injury and is therefore unambiguously violent.

Dear Aidan,

Good, so you are able to recognise that a complex violent operation can be classified as such by the whole, rather than by the chronologically very last bit of action (or inaction) that could on its own be classified as non-violent.

So if a group of people who call themselves "state", represented by their government and police, want to make you follow a certain law of theirs and as you refuse to follow it, they come to arrest you, they knock on your door and as you do not open, they break your door and break into your home trying to take you to jail and as you resist in self-defence, they use force against your body so they can physically grab your body and throw it in jail. That last bit they technically justify as self-defence, but in fact their whole act, starting from when they demanded that you follow their laws, is violent!

When certain people enforce their policies on other people, that's already an initiation of force, regardless how they technically achieve their plot.

Aidan
Thank you for that.

"The government classify assault as violent. So do I.
But that doesn't mean it necessarily involves any actual violence."

So where does that leave assault? Violence? Or not violence?

Aidan

So what's the answer to the question?

Is assault violence or not violence?

Aidan

So you have been contradicting yourself on this point since day one, and in all the numerous lengthy discussions we have had. You have repeatedly both admitted and denied the same proposition, then when I have said you're contradicting yourself, you have denied it, and then repeated the same contradiction - over and over and over again. And you're still doing it!

Even with the spotlight glaring on your intellectual dishonesty, you can't bring yourself to come clean, and admit that you're wrong.

You're wrong, okay? You are talking bullsh!t.

The government in enforcing law and policy does NOT act in "self-defence", you fool. What a load of complete nonsense.

Even when you are stripped of all your evasive gabble-yarp, and forced into a corner, and forced to confront your own double-talk, you still won't have the decency to admit the glaringly obvious.

And my same demolition of your blatantly false claim that the enforcement of your economic policies does not rest on violence, awaits your double-talk and circularity about the economics. You enter the discussion having assume without explanation that government creates such and such a net benefit. When challenged, you deny that you're begging the question. And then you do it again, and again, and again! And you tell me the problem is my lack of understanding and my intellectual dishonesty!

You have not established that the government is capable of ANY economic intervention that confers a net economic benefit to society, either by way of retirement affordability, or anything else.

And if you dare to answer, I'll prove it.

Now is assault violence, or not?

All I know for the third year running pension increases have not met private health costs.

Jardine,

AIUI the crime (and tort) of assault does not necessarily involve actual violence, though in the cases that go to court it usually does. And in Australia it is classified as a violent crime whether or not any actual violence occurs.

Nothing I have said contradicts that; you are perceiving a contradiction where none exists.

"The government in enforcing law and policy does NOT act in "self-defence", you fool. What a load of complete nonsense."
ITYF most instances of actual violence by those enforcing the law are in self defence or the defence of others. In other situations the cops don't usually have a reason to resort to violence.

Why is it you have so much trouble comprehending that the government prevents far more violence than it commits?

You've frequently falsely accused me of intellectual dishonesty, so now I refuse to tolerate the intellectual dishonesty that you frequently resort to.

Regarding my position on economics, I'm happy to discuss it if you like. But you seemed to regard that irrelevant ECP argument as a prerequisite, and then you preferred to concentrate on the semantics of whether assault is violence.

Do you think your equivocation and slimy evasiveness isn't obvious?

You say that the government, and you, classify assault as violence.

But then you say that assault is not "actual violence".

When I asked you specifically to say whether assault is or is not violence, you evade answering on point, and only divert to *repeating your equivocation* that occasioned by question. Talk about slimy.

Of course your equivocation leaves you the wriggle room, when caught advocating violence, to deny that it's "actual violence", even where you yourself have previously admitted that it is violence. And that's exactly the squirming tactic you have used in previous threads, isn't it?

So will you let us know, whether you consider your category of "violence that is not actual violence" to be a subset of the general category of
a) "violence" or of the general category of
b) "not-violence"?

Also, if A corners and threatens to stab B with a knife, but without A or the knife ever touching B, do you consider that to be violence, or not? I'm not asking whether you think it's "actual" versus "violence but not actual violence". I'm asking whether you consider it to be violence, or not-violence? Okay? Got that? Understand now?

[Readers: stand by on slime alert.]

Well that's just typical of you, Jardine: I tell you what I understand the truth to be, and you don't provide any evidence to the contrary or even properly dispute my claim, but instead you criticise me for "equivocation and slimy evasiveness"! Your own pathetic inability to deal with complex situations means you keep asking me questions that I've already answered, and get mad at me when I stick to the answer that I believe to be correct!

Assault in general certainly can't be classified as not violence, as it usually does involve violence.

But, to the best of my legal understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) assault is the threat of violence; the actual violence is battery. Which would mean it's technically possible for an individual instance of assault to be classified as not violence (if not involving actual violence is the standard for classifying something as not violence).

"Also, if A corners and threatens to stab B with a knife, but without A or the knife ever touching B, do you consider that to be violence, or not?"
I consider it to be violence if A attempts or intends to carry out the threat.
If A does not attempt or intend to carry out the threat, I do not consider it to be violence... but I hasten to add that it's still a crime, and indeed I'd expect it to be officially classified as a violent crime for crime statistics purposes.

Honestly, Aidan, it's like drawing teeth.

I asked whether *you consider* assault to be violence, or not, and you answer "it's technically possible for an individual instance of assault to be classified as not violence", i.e. trying to slime out of ownership of the proposition, and slime it onto some unspecified,unnamed, absent, hypothetical other.

I know it must be hard to for you to say something without being slimy and evasive, but just try.

Do *YOU* consider assault to be a sub-set of the general category of violence, or a sub-set of the general category of non-violence?

Not somebody else. *YOU*?

BTW thank you for your admission that you are equivocating, and have been equivocating the whole time.

I claimed that you are contradicting yourself, and now you admit that you have been, the whole time, simultaneously running contradictory propositions, namely, that assault is, and is not violence. When I say government interventions are based on violence, you say they're not not. But then you admit that governments initiate threats to enforce policy; and by their own definition, assault is a crime and act of violence.

Then when I want to rely on that conclusion, you try to slime out of it by saying that assault is not "actual violence". Then when I ask whether assault is a sub-set of violence or not, you're back to you're slimy double-talk, trying to shuck responsibility off onto someone else, and contradicting yourself by saying it's not.

And then you have the gall to personally attack me for "not providing evidence" when I have correctly evidenced from the very beginning, by your own words, that you are contradicting yourself. You blame me for asking you questions "that I have already answered" when YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED, AND ARE STILL TRYING TO SLIME YOUR WAY OUT OF IT.

Now what's the answer to the question, pray? Do *YOU* consider assault to be a sub-set of the general category of violence, or a sub-set of the general category of non-violence?

Struth, Jardine, do you STiLL not comprehend what I'm saying?

I consider assault to be in the general category of violence, though not an exact fit.

Nothing I have said contradicts this.

Governments do not use threats of violence to enforce policy. It is rare for governments to make any threats to enforce policy, and when they do it's usually the threat of a change in the law, or regulatory change, or a Royal Commission etc.

Enforcing the law sometimes involves threats of violence, but you should note that:
•Not all law enforcement involves any threats of violence.
•Every country would be far more violent without enforcement of laws.
•Law enforcement officers don't have carte blanche to use violence; it is only permitted in specific circumstances.

Therefore I reject your conclusion that government interventions are based on violence.

Aidan

You're STILL contradicting yourself at every turn. You're just going round and round in a loop of garbled double-talk.

First you say that you don't agree with aggressive violence. Then you admit that the law and policy are enforced by the initiation of force or threats. Then you say it's not "actual" violence. Then you admit that it *is* in the general category of violence. Then you say it could be categorised as not-violence. Then you come back saying that you've decided that it *is* in the general category of violence, but "not".

You say "Governments do not use threats of violence to enforce policy". But you've just admitted they do, you fool. Because assault is a threat of violence, and obeying the law is not optional, remember?

"Law enforcement officers don't have carte blanche to use violence; it is only permitted in specific circumstances."
a) you've already conceded that the threat of physical force is violence. Read back what you just wrote.
b) You're *assuming* that the subject obeys. What if they don't?

If you don't concede that assault is violence, you're contradicting yourself, and you're factually and legally wrong. And if you do, you've lost the argument.

Therefore *all* law enforcement involves the threat of violence, because if you don't obey their first threat, they'll escalate it, and you agree that
a) assault is "in the general category of violence"
b) disobedience is not a legal option, and
c) they have the "right" to escalate it?

REMEMBER? So you've lost the argument, you fool. You can PRETEND all you like that obeying the law is voluntary, but you know you're talking bullsh!t .

The problem isn't that I don't understand what you're saying, the problem is that *you* don't understand what you're saying, and you're just going round in a loop of endless self-contradiction.

What this means is that we have COMPLETELY DESTROYED your ethics, and your entire theory of political economy with it. You've got nothing but flim-flam.

You cannot justify any economic intervention on ethical grounds, and your economic theory is just as laughable self-contradictory.

Jardine,

You seem to be trying to argue that anyone who doesn't agree with aggressive violence is contradicting themselves if they don't support anarchy!

To me that position seems absolutely absurd.

My position is that the state should enforce the law, and shouldn't use violence (by which I mean action intended or likely to cause injury) except in self defence or the defence of others.

I am not assuming that the subject obeys. I don't think the police should use violence to stop a suspect who's running away (except for a small minority of violent offenders who pose a danger to the public just by being at large). However if the arrestee chooses to escalate the situation (which is NOT a right) then I've got no problem with the police threatening (and if necessary, using) violence in self defence.

In most cases the police can outrun fleeing suspects anyway (particularly when it's one suspect against many cops). Nobody can run for ever.

But I accept that, although the police don't have carte blanche to use violence, the existing regulations are not quite so strict.

Now do you understand what I'm saying?

I would also like a greater emphasis on preventing crime, including avoiding the situation where people gain the impression they've got no option but to resort to crime. And that (unlike your drivel about violence and the strawman that you have COMPLETELY DESTROYED), is strongly linked to the political economy.

BTW regarding that trivial argument about assault, I do still maintain that non violent assault is possible. For instance, someone could get a realistic looking toy gun and use it to threaten someone else: that's assault, but no actual violence is involved.