Yabby wrote, "Grim, what has changed over time is expectations. In 1970, the average weekly wage was 71$, now its 900$. Back then people aspired to a fibro 3by1 of 13 squares, now its a 4by2 of 25 squares. Back then a colour tv was a luxury, now a million widescreens a year are sold in Australia. ..."

This is the kind of sweeping generalisation that I have become accustomed to Yabby using in apparent attempts to confuse discussions about questions of prosperity and economic justice. For further examples, see the abovementioned discussion in response to my article "Living standards and our material prosperity" of 6 Sep 2007 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6326&page=0 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326&page=0 as well as the discussion "Housing affordability squeezed by speculators" of 30 Nov 2007 at eopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6697&page=0 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6697&page=0

Yabby is essentially saying that everyone in this country has been adequately provided for and that those who face desperate financial hardship have only themselves to blame because their expectations are too high and because they have wasted their money.

There are at least three facts which Yabby has not acknowledged:

1. That a lot of what used to be free or very cheap has not been factored into the measures of prosperity. These include access to recreational areas and open spaces in general, fishing resources, uncrowded roads, unpolluted rivers and air, etc, etc. Most scandalously, housing is not included, but there are many other examples, which I have listed in the abovementioned article.

2. A good many may have done relatively well, at least up until now, but only in a far more limited sense that largely excludes the factors mentioned in point 1. This form of prosperity for some has often been made possible because they have bought a house, when they were cheap in comparison to today. Consequently they did have a lot of money to squander on the plasma TV's, gambling and TV's that Yabby is practised at alluding to, if they so chose. However, In our pyramid-selling real estate economy, it is not possible for everyone to come out ahead. (tobecontinued ...)

(... continuedfromabove) Someone else ends up paying for the inflated housing values enjoyed by others, either through gigantic mortgages with crippling interest or as tenants.

3. That the material prosperity that some members of our community enjoy comes at a horrific ecological cost.

I think the following included from a post to the discussion about the article "Living standards and our material prosperity" is much closer to the mark, even before the current economic crisis began:

"Too many people are being forced into 3rd world conditions (and yes, I have seen some). Am I (and I suspect others) better off than my parents 40 years ago? No. On a comparative scale I have far fewer benefits than they did then. More importantly, they agree with this." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6326#93239)

Yabby wrote "... land is more expensive, as we have alot more people competing and Govts restricting release of it. Blame Govts for that"

Yes, we have a lot more people, because our Governments serve the Growth Lobby, which paradoxically profits, principally through land speculation, from population growth which must necessarily make our community as a whole poorer. (See my article "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 9 Feb 09 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485&page=0).

In fact the Queensland Bligh Government is largely following your advice, and as a consequence, the habitat of the Koala in South East Queensland is being destroyed. The Koala is now endangered in SEQ and and we can expect it to become extinct in as little as two years.

It's astonishing that someone who claims to be concerned about the problems of our environment and of overpopulation continues to post such nonsense to OLO.

A bit late, but my comment on the topic is:

Money supply should be a public service in as much as toothpaste supply.

Banks cannot create endless supply of money without serious consequences. The correct regulation is all that is required to achieve this.

Gov banks have always been a black hole into which taxes disappear.

All in all an ill informed post.

*That a lot of what used to be free or very cheap has not been factored into the measures of prosperity. These include access to recreational areas and open spaces in general, fishing resources, uncrowded roads, unpolluted rivers and air, etc*

Wow poor Daggett, now you have to pay a few bucks for a fishing
license! Where I am, there are plenty of uncrowded roads and
unpolluted air, but its your choice to live in the big smoke, so
wear it.

*Am I (and I suspect others) better off than my parents 40 years ago? No*

Daggett, stop blaming the world for your bad judgement. It was you
who seemingly got married, divorced, lost money on real estate etc.
This is not a nanny state. But its certainly a place of opportunity,
for those who can be bothered to take it. But I know, its a human
foible, lets just blame the whole world for our problems, rather then
face the stark reality that it could be ourselves. You are seemingly
a classic example of such a case.

That's just bizarre, daggett. Even for you.

>>Pericles wrote, "The government allows the Banks to create a million dollars, which they lend to you. You start a successful business with it, and are able to pay it back, with interest, after a year."

The problem is that it is mathematically impossible for everyone to repay that debt. The banks create out of thin air the principle, but not the interest.<<

"Everyone"doesn't need to pay it back. Only me.

I pay back the principal, it exits the economy.

I make a profit. It stays in the economy, in a number of ways.

I share my profits.

With the Bank, who lent me the money.

With the government, who extract taxes from me (assuming I pay myself from the profits I make), from the staff I pay in the process of making those profits, from the company itself, and from the Bank on the interest I paid them.

And with myself.

As you can see, all of this stays within the economy, thanks to my ability to turn a profit on borrowed money, through my business.

Makes sense now?

Yabby,

If you had properly read my previous post, as well as those of Grim, Under One God and others, you would have understood that there is a strong prima facie case that living standards of ordinary Australians have declined in recent decades, and that is regardless of individual circumstances, so perhaps you should address those arguments instead of making cheap personal attacks against me.

It may well be that there are parts of the country that have not yet been ruined by globalisation and population growth, but I don't see how having hundreds of thousands of people to move to those places is a viable solution. If they did all decide to move to where you now live, can you be certain that it will remain so idyllic?

Pericles,

I can see that the point of post has gone right over your head.

Obviously it is possible for some individuals to repay their own loans to the bank, but if we understand that all money in circulation has originated as debt to a bank somewhere, and that banks have only created the principle and not the interest, there cannot possibly be enough money for everyone to repay their debts to the banks. This is explained in the movie "Money as Debt" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

It is like a game of musical chairs. When the music stops, someone inevitably finds that they have no chair.

Similarly, some inevitably must default on their loans and that is what happens in practice, wherever governments have handed over what should be their own responsibilities to private bankers.

---

Shadow Minister wrote, "Gov banks have always been a black hole into which taxes disappear."

In fact, the opposite is the case. When the Governments of the American colonies, throughout most of the 18th century, took on the functions of banks, the revenue they gained from interest allowed them to provide government services without having to resort to taxes. (Brown Op. cit, pp38-39).