In some ways we have too much wealth for our own good.If all the wealth from the minerals boom is released into our economy through higher wages,it would be self defeating,since prices will only increase and the money would be taken from us in the form of higher interest rates.

There is a smarter way to carve up the ecomonomic cake equitably and reward ordinary people without adding to inflationary pressures.The Federal Govt now has all this wealth,it really does not know what to do with.

Why not give this wealth away in the form of infrastructure bonds to every Australian working or not,as a part of their superannuation package.The money won't add to inflation because it can't immediately be spent,but can be used now to improve our infrastructure.We all can own our piece of infrastructure.Improved infrastucture will have a multiplier effect and add to the national wealth.

When people retire their bonds can be cashed in to live a more comfortable retirement.Why should only Pollies and Fat Cats have a future fund?

This concept has two positive effects.It is the shortage of money that keeps an economy lean/efficient and rewarding every Australian with a more secure retirement will put a lot more minds at rest.This is also a better way of distributing wealth without huge bureaucracies absorbing half of it.

Now is there an economist around,who can blow a hole in my concept and tell me why it can't be done?

rj, this might be a good idea, but you don't need to be an economist to blow a hole in it.

oz is not a democracy. it is not run for the benefit of ozzies in general, but rather as an aid in getting re-elected. consequently, any idea that reduces the dependence on pollies is very unlikely to be smiled on by pollies.

in short, they're in the fish-handing-out business, not the fish-pole-handing-out business.

Well...I agree with both of you.

Arjay.. its a great idea, but Demos does have a point.

If only governments were actually 'about' the overall welfare of the nation, rather than "winning elections so they can divide the cake among themselves and their supporters".

Unfortunately, Arjay, you have targeted a very 'Biblical' approach to government :) "unselfish".

I read of the euphoria that enveloped the early Christians after Pentecost when:

Acts2:44
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

Yet just a few chapters later we read:

Acts 6:1

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.

So, even in the best of spiritual climates, selfishness can rear it's ugly head. The old 'self' is like those heads which pop up at carnivals.. you know..the ones you belt the daylights out of to knock them down.. and UP pops another....

In secular society, in contrast to a Christ centred fellowship, there is no corrective means (such as... the Apostles guidance/teaching/rebuke/counsel) except 'conflict' which usually manifests politically.

Hence we have Labor (Unions/Workers) and Liberal (business/Bosses)

So, if we could solve the 'human' problem, I'm all for what you suggest.

As I've long whined... "we need a government which is for the country, not just a segement of it"

What we HAVE of course is government for segments who 'window dress' in such a way as to persuade the gullable that they are doing stuff for the 'national' interest.
cheers

YES
The Lib/Nats have kept the lid on inflation by overtaxing us and socking away the excess money in the "Future Fund" (weasel words)and then sending that 50billion to the Americans to invest. Also buying 10bil in Spanish Ships ?? BIll$ in US "paper planes' etc.
NOW crunch time has come. How do you give back the wealth without causing inflation?
It depends a bit on weather you believe in supply or demand side economics.
SEE
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0514-20.htm
QUOTE:"Demand Side economics, as we saw in the 1990s, while far from perfect, produces robust growth, budgetary surpluses, and broad based prosperity. Supply Side economics produces middling growth, soaring deficits, and broad based debt. Mountains of debt. And the mountains are growing."
AND
http://www.forbes.com/finance/2007/08/17/energy-congress-legislation-pf-guru-in_mm_0817energy_inl.html
OR
http://forums.hypography.com/social-sciences/13261-economics-free-market.html

I am sure if we put our heads together we could come up with some taxes that could be abolished that are inflationary and could be done away with. Petrol and Gas excise would be one, perhaps payroll tax?

What Government spending in our present minerals boom would not be inflationary?

Any other suggestions?

Of course Bush could solve the problem for us by stuffing the US economy with supply side economics, the sub-prime crisis and profligate military spending (Often benefiting US firms).
Too, most (90%)US foreign AID is tied to spending it in the US;
so while we give aid$ away the US stimulates its economy with it!

"We live in interesting time" is, an appropriately Chinese, curse? :)

michael2,
I like the idea of returning taxes!duh!
I have always thought taxing, thru excise on petrol, was self defeating
What now happens too often is petroleum companies take advantage in any way they can, LP gas is a great example, it is no advantage for any to be on LP gas.
If we were to retreat to price control on petroleum companies we may get somewhere by making excise redundant, I don't want the job of selling that idea, do you?
Controlled reduction in taxation is timely, unless our masters come up with another snowy scheme thats what should be done.
fluff4

Releasing the wealth is not self defeating. People just focus on inflation because so many people ahve a lot borrowed. A more important factor is the burden of government on the society and economy (mostly through tax). There is no need for the government to carve up the cake for us. We are perfectly capable of doing it ourselves.