The Forum > Article Comments > Monster of debt to come > Comments
Monster of debt to come : Comments
By Mikayla Novak, published 6/4/2009Kevin Rudd seems to think the way to economic salvation is to have a bigger government in every nook and cranny of our lives.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Tiglath, Monday, 6 April 2009 12:06:09 PM
| |
Perhaps if this twit read books such as When Corporations Ruled the World by David Korten she will find that it is corporations that over-whelmingly determine everything about our lives---and I mean everything.
Or perhaps bothered to check out how the big brother 24/7 world-wide security systems put in place via the USA Homeland "security" apparatus did more to ensure that the government can snoop on every aspect of our lives than anything so far done or suggested by Rudd or Obama. Similar systems were put in place in other countries too, including Australia. Big cities are now saturated with spy (security) cameras. Both the UK and Germany have massive camera systems. Systems which make the 24/7 system described in 1984 look naively primitive. Have you still got your fridge magnet? Advertisements still appear urging the good faithful citizen to support anything "suspicious". Systems which are now almost impossible to dismantle and which also have a life of their own---as do all such bureaucratic systems. Read the chapters in The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein about how the Orwellian 24/7 spy system industry went through exponential growth as a result of the post Sept 11 phoney "war on terror". No doubt that this posting will in one way or another be monitored by some spy system either embedded in the computer software, a Google cookie, or via the 24/7 government "listening" stations, the function of which is to monitor ALL computer and email messages which use certain key words as terror/terrorism (etc)---plus mobile phone calls too Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 6 April 2009 12:18:56 PM
| |
Julie,
It is not government spending that is the problem it is the mechanism by which governments spend money that is the problem. When governments spend money they have to account for the expenditure and control it. This is where it all becomes inefficient and we spend money without getting good value. We will always have government spending - and so we should because it is spending to support the communities rather than spending solely for particular individuals. There are some expenditures that will not happen if it is left up to individuals. This is the socalled Tragedy of the Commons effect. There is another way for governments to spend money. Currently governments tend to spend money to provide services to the population - think hospitals, think schools, think roads, think public transport, think old age care, think reductions in emissions, think water etc. Rather than providing the services the government can give the money to the people who need the services and let them purchase the services through a free market. To see how the government can use markets to increase the money supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions take a look at http://stableproductivemoney.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/increasing-the-money-supply-without-loans/ Use this approach and the current 29% of GDP could deliver more benefits than it does at the moment. We can have less expenditure and more benefits through smarter ways of spending government (our or the communities) money. Posted by Fickle Pickle, Monday, 6 April 2009 12:40:53 PM
| |
Julie and others,
Before you firm up your ideas on what the government should be doing and what the G20 thought it was doing you should consider that the "game" has changed dramatically. The old scenario of playing with interest rates, currencies etc is all over. Obviously the G20 and their advisers are simply asleep at the wheel. I suggest before you go any further with this discussion you read this; http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48530 GDP is now being driven by energy, money is now out of the picture. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 6 April 2009 12:50:15 PM
| |
>> More spending means more taxes,
eventually. the crisis is now. >> One more dollar of tax raised means one less dollar kept by the productive private sector, kept for what purpose? if the private sector is not "productive", i don't much care how many dollars they have. do these idiots *ever* have a moment of humility? do they ever accept an ounce of responsibility for the damage done by their zealous anti-regulation, anti-government preaching? who and what do they think created this mess? why do they think the same ideological blindness will now fix what it created? Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 6 April 2009 1:08:22 PM
| |
A good article Julie. Rudd's tirade against neoliberalism signals a big change in direction. The policies of free trade and free markets are to be replaced by more state control. The higher taxes necessary to pay for the bigger role of government will result in less investment in productive capacity and lower wages and employment the end result.
I disagree with you about people saving their stimulus packages being a problem. Surely that is a good thing. Australia's household debt is too high and people that save their government handout are showing more good sense than the PM and treasurer have shown. Posted by Wattle, Monday, 6 April 2009 2:33:57 PM
|
Interesting contention but readers should weigh your arguement up against the fact that you are a part of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne with close links to the Liberal Party.
Once people understand that they can then better judge your advice.
Link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs