The Forum > General Discussion > Abolishing work choices, the gamble that failed.
Abolishing work choices, the gamble that failed.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 9 May 2013 6:57:50 PM
| |
"I note that no one has argued against my quotes from the speeches of the retired former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane."
I've argued against it. I note you have not replied. Care to? It's no use seeking "new economic perspectives" if you don't understand what you're talking about, and your argument is based on a premise that is, factually speaking, flatly incorrect. Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 May 2013 7:38:53 PM
| |
Jardine K Jardine
I only studied one year of economics when it was a prerequisite , along with Psychology-1, Accounting-1, and a first degree (mine is in science) for a Masters in Business Administration. I was not able to undertake the MBA as, by then, I had a family and was supervising 450 employees in heavy industry. Later that number grew to 2350. I have my own well thumbed copies of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (five books) and Keynes "General Theory" and have and have read many other economics works. I suggest if you want to argue against views expressed by people like Ian Macfarlane you should produce actual quotes by reputable experts in the field. And, don't both quoting anyone from the Milton Friedman's camp. That work has been thoroughly discredited. Do you understand what is happening in the USA with Quantitative Easing or why Europe is in such trouble with austerity under a common currency? Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:34:54 PM
| |
"I suggest if you want to argue against views expressed by people like Ian Macfarlane you should produce actual quotes by reputable experts in the field."
I find that an odd thing to say. Do you accept or reject economic theory on its own merits, or do you just believe views that you don't understand based on what you perceive to be the authoritativeness of the person expressing them? To put it another way, if Macfarlane was wrong, how would you know? Would you have any way of knowing other than by "quotes" by "reputable experts"? What kind of economic theory is that? I argue against the views of Macfarlane by providing *reasons* that I challenge you to answer. I say it is flatly incorrect to blame the GFC on "free markets" for the reason that governments at all times exercised a monopoly on the supply of money, and were manipulating the price of money at all relevant times for decades before, and at all times during the GFC. What do you say to that? "And, don't both quoting anyone from the Milton Friedman's camp." Okay. "Do you understand what is happening in the USA with Quantitative Easing" Yes. The Fed is printing money like it's going outa style, pretending to create benefits for society as a whole, while actually looting A (owner/producer of the wealth stolen by government's inflation of the money supply) to satisfy B (pet political favourite). "or why Europe is in such trouble with austerity under a common currency?" Please define "such trouble" and "austerity"? "Failure to take note of Macfarlane, and similarly knowledgeable others, including the Canadian, John Ralston Saul, resulted in the Global Financial Crisis." Prove it? No appeals to absent authority please. Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 9 May 2013 11:42:50 PM
| |
This is an extract from a comment from a Mr Ross Greenwood
Why the U.S. Was downgraded: * U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 * Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000 * New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 * National debt: $14,271,000,000,000 * Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000 Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget: * Annual family income: $21,700 * Money the family spent: $38,200 * New debt on the credit card: $16,500 * Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710 * Total budget cuts: $385 Now back home, again from RG The total Government debt will end up around $200 billion. So here's a very basic calculation.. I used a home loan calculator to work it out..... it's that simple.. $200 billion is $2 hundred thousand million. The current 10 year Government bond rate is 4.67 per cent. I worked the loan out over a period of 20 years. Now here's where it gets scary.... Really scary. The repayments on $200 billion, come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $15.4 billion in interest and principal every year.. $733 for every man woman and child - every year. The total interest bill over the 20 years is - get this - $108 billion. Remember, this is a Government, that just 4 years ago, had NO debt! & I DO MEAN “NO DEBT”!! In fact, it had enough money to create the Future Fund, to pay the future liabilities of public servants' superannuation, and it had enough to stick $20 billion into the Building Australia Fund... Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, NOT! I wish to say a huge thanks to all those labor die hards out there who assisted these fools with their unconditional support. Take a bow! Posted by rehctub, Friday, 10 May 2013 6:59:08 AM
| |
As it turns out, the world of debt is a lot more complicated than butchers might have us believe.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/03/27/heres-the-real-story-of-australian-debt/ Posted by qanda, Friday, 10 May 2013 7:57:27 AM
|
The reason that the private section of the economy owed so much money at the end of the Howard/Costello era was that that pair believed they were doing the right thing selling assets and balancing the budget.
The Common Good of the general public ended up much poorer that it was when the governments owned on our behalf, Telstra, Which Bank, airports, power generating systems etc. The Future Fund probably has enough money to buy back a small percentage of what was sold off.
A budget outcome should not be the aim. The aim of government should be to minimise the disruptions to society caused by the booms and busts attributable to the rises and collapses in enthusiasms in private behaviour.
I note that no one has argued against my quotes from the speeches of the retired former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane.
I suggest some of those making comments read some recent articles at New Economic Perspectives. Better still sign up for their regular excellent blogs. One recent one by Dr Stephanie Kelton, Chair of the Economics Department the University of Missouri, Kansas City is available at ;
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/05/the-laymans-case-against-austerity.html#more-5402