Nothing to worry about there, little old Aussie isn't going to be hit by the Irish Ecomic (slang term for a economically crazed Irishman) until the year 20007, that not for another 17988 years. I hope to be retired by then, and living off the non existent Aged Pension.

Thanks ttbn, and you have the hide to tell others to read before posting.

So Aidan, a plethora of economists utterly debunk your daft notions and you want to play semantics. Its not as if these people didn't have the chance to say that a floating currency changes the equation if that were indeed the case, as you assert.

Perhaps that's because it makes no difference, or at least little difference. The point is that, as more and more money is printed, the currency has to depreciate. Now it may be that that happens more 'gracefully' under a floating currency but it can also happen under a fixed currency as well. So your claiming that a floating currency alters the equation is a distinction without a difference.

I suspect the floating currency assertions exist because all the examples so far where merrily printing money has ended badly has occurred in nations with fixed currencies. But in those examples the currency was still depreciated. Floating or not, the problem was the irresponsible printing of money not the fact that the depreciation was not market-driven.

In the end this whole notion is about people unwilling to accept that they can't have it all. Its about people, like some of the current Democrat presidential contenders, promising that which can't be paid for while asserting (hoping?) that it'll be paid for by someone else sometime else.

"I do have a sense of humour, mhaze"

Now THAT's funny.

Aidan,

I don't believe that I misunderstood what you said. What I do understand is that you cannot answer my questions. Questioning is always a problem for ideologues and slogan announcers. Too many people just latch on to something an 'expert' they admire has said or written, and repeat it without examination of the information.

No, ttbn, it's not that I can't answer your questions - it's simply that other things (like watching the footy) took priority.

No, I don't keep my money under the bed. I use http://www.lll.org.au

>How does interest keep the poor “in thrall to the rich”?
The more the debts have to pay their creditors, the more power the creditors have over them.

>How does improving skills (good in itself) instead accumulating money help the economy? Why can't both happen?
To some extent both do happen, but it's the former we should be encouraging. Many people still imagine they can get rich through financial investments, but few do.

Accumulating money effectively reduces the amount of it in circulation, which can be good for reducing inflation, or even for increasing the size of the deficit the government can run before inflation becomes a problem. However under the current economic circumstances and policy, accumulating money has no good effects on the rest of the economy.

>What good are “reduced expenses” to business via lower interest rates if people
>can't accumulate and save money to purchase from those businesses?
Firstly, people would still be able to accumulate and save money even when interest rates are at zero. The problem of depressed demand is indicative of too little money in the economy, and encouraging people to accumulate more makes the problem worse.

Secondly, people can buy things on credit.

Low interest rates don't cause economic downturns (though they're often a reaction to economic downturns). But high interest rates have caused many economic downturns, including the Keating recession.

(tbc)

ttbn (continued)
>How do people have a “high standard of living throughout their lives” if they haven't the money to fund it?
The most obvious way is by borrowing money, which is one of the main reasons why so many people take out huge home loans.

A better way is by the government redistributing wealth, both directly and indirectly.

>Should pensioners not be allowed to save what they can from their
>pensions and receive interest for occasional treats and luxuries?
Of course that shouldn't be disallowed. 'Tis their money – they should be able to do what they like with it.

>Why have you not learned that greater spending by big government
>has never worked, and is anathema to free enterprise?
Why have you not learned that the above belief, though widely held, isn't actually true?

>History is strewn with failures of big government spending.
And we must learn from those failures to ensure the spending is done efficiently.

>Your final paragraph is a real doozy. The correct formula is SAVING and spending less than you have saved.
Correct formula for what, exactly? If everyone tries to do that at once, it's a formula for economic depression!