ttbn,

"Unless you run a business, have done the homework and are as sure as you can be that you will make a profit after you have repaid the loan, you should not live on debt. I apply this simple code to governments - who do not have any money of their own: they use ours - and to individuals"
If you look at why it's generally sensible to apply that to individuals, you'll see that it doesn't apply to governments. They never die, they never retire, they never become unemployed, and (for sovereign currency issuers like our Federal government) they will never be refused further credit. So instead of planning to eventually eliminate debt (which would be sensible for humans due to their limited lifespan) they should do what's best for their people instead of trying to meet some accounting objective.

And would you say corporations do not have any money of their own? If not, what's the difference?

"Yes, I do really mean that governments should balance the budget, as one side of the the political divide often has."
Both sides of the political divide! The myth the coalition are better economic managers is baseless; it's merely due to their happening to be in power when the economic conditions are right. See http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2009/09/cashbalance.PNG

"I suppose you are talking about wealth 'on paper';"
No, I'm talking about money. It is not the same as wealth, even though it has a secondary purpose as a store of wealth.

" and, of course, some of us do have to save to that others can borrow."
No, it's the other way round: some of us have to borrow so that others can save. If nobody was borrowing, there wouldn't be the money available to save.

"I maintain that, unless your life depends on it, you don't borrow."
So you think that those not already rich should keep renting even when that's the more expensive option?

"Never a lender nor a borrower be" was said by someone misquoting Shakespeare. The correct quote is "Neither a borrower nor a lender be"...

..."Governments should not spend money they don't have on 'make work' schemes;"
Even when the benefits outweigh the costs?

"governments are not supposed to do that, and when they try, they make a total pig's ear of it."
Who are you to determine what governments should and shouldn't do?

And the Rudd government's stimulus packages kept Australia out of recession, so I'd rate them as an economic success.

Private enterprise is not the only creator of jobs. Many people work for governments and for businesses that have contracts with governments. Who someone is working for doesn't determine the value of the work. We are a mixed economy, and governments can contribute to the success of private enterprise.

Though the private sector is currently weak, of course it is still there and raring to go! But demand is depressed, and that's holding it back. Meanwhile, globalisation is good for the economy, and provides a lot of business opportunities. Cheap goods counteract inflation. But we need to take advantage of these new economic conditions.

You're wrong Poirot, I do give a toss.

I give a toss about our kids leaving school after ten or twelve years not being able to fill out an application form for a job.

I gave a toss about people wanting or needing the most basic of operations, being sent home because the under funded hospital can't cope.

I give a toss about our pensioners, most if whom have paid taxes all their lives, not being able to pay the service call fee to see why their washing machine won't work.

What I don't give much if a toss about are foreigners, mostly Muslims, who have arrived here uninvited, cue jumpers, whinging about how poorly they are being treated, when they are being fed and live without fear if having bombs dropped on them.

So I do give a toss Poirot, I just channel my 'toss thoughts' towards issues at home because I'm a firm believer that charity starts at home.

Now if part of that makes me a racist in your eyes, quite frankly I don't give a toss because my tosses are focussed on trying to maintain our peace loving way of life, the life that I as a kid grew up with, and a life that I now as a grand father would like to see my grand child grow up with, although it too late fior that I'm afraid.

So as you can see Poirot, I do give a toss, just not your toss.

So you keep tossing over the cue jumpers and il Chanel my tosses toward home grown issues, issues that I consider far more worthy of my tossing.

Cheers!

Btw, I have no problem paying taxes, my problem lies with how my taxes are distributed by incompetent people.

Aidan,

Who am I to dictate what governments do? I am an Australian citizen and voter. Judging by your waffle, you are too young to vote. You have been given more than enough chances to explain your eco-babble, but the best you can do is keep repeating the same rubbish and correct a quote you seem to think I got wrong. What a serious and intelligent character you are - not.

Tell you what: I have room left on my idiot-best-ignored list. I'll add you to it.

ttbn, I too am an Australian citizen and voter. And the majority of voters in Australia reject your very limitedl government ideology, especially when it comes at the expense of practicality.

As for my "eco babble", I have explained why what's arguably a ggod policy for people is an extremely bad policy for governments. If my explanation is in any way unsatisfactory, tell me what you think the flaw is in my reasoning and ai'd be happy to discuss it further.

But I get the sense that your objective is to maintain your existing beliefs; like Arjay you won't seriously consider any evidence to the contrary. Or possibly even that you regard accounting outcomes as more important than real outcomes, and would prefer to put a million people out of work than for the government to borrow money.

Gawd, I go away for a few days and you all get yourselves into this mess.

Ignore Aiden, he is living in a Business as Usual world.
We are borrowing $1000,000,000 a month, that alone is enough to worry about.
GDP is on its way out so there will be no point in arguing GDP ratios.
Sooner or later someone will want their money back, and they may want
it in Remebis however you spell it.
China no longer trusts US$ so they won't want that.
They may just foreclose.
Sometime in the next year or two Australia will join Germany and others
in the zero growth club.
Worse, we may not be able to pay the Singapore refinery for our petrol & diesel.
I again draw your attention that oil & coal production has started to
fall and it will affect nearly all countries, with a collapse of a few
countries very much on the cards.
The real experts, I am just an echo chamber for them, believe that
when the price starts rising again most countries will go into a
recession, some worse than others.

How will Australia handle the extra expense of high unemployment ?
By that time printing money will just mean massive inflation.

Unless we stop exporting our coal & gas we will not have the means
to build the next energy system whatever that turns out to be.
There is a distinct possibility that there will be no solution.
I doubt we can afford a fleet of nuclear power stations.

Now a lesson in reality: Energy is the key to all production !
Whether it be food or manufactured goods or anything you can think of.
Forget money, the only energy it produces is when you burn it.
Our world wide problem was trigged off in 2008 by peak oil in 2006
and we have been fiddling with the problem ever since.
Fortunately there is gradually now an understanding by more economists
that money is not the answer. Maybe the pollies will listen to them.