Cumberland,
What you imagine to be a case of the population being fooled is more likely to be a case of them having a better understanding than you do of the relationship between one and wealth.
Physical wealth comes from working.
Under capitalism, money is a prerequisite for that - people need to be paid to do the work, and businesses won't employ people unless it's profitable to do so.
So although money isn't sufficient to create wealth, lack of enough money is sufficient to inhibit the creation of wealth.

_________________________________________________________________________________

mhaze,
I doubt the claim that "Labor spent like drunken sailors and the Libs cleaned up afterwards" was ever anything more than a Liberal party slogan that ignored reality. The Libs tended to do far more wrecking than clearing up. And both parties have cut spending at times, sometimes in ways that turned out to be false economies. But Labor seem to have a better understanding of efficiency than the Libs do.

"But Labor seem to have a better understanding of efficiency than the Libs do."

Well it probably depends on what you mean by the word and what thing you're saying they're more efficient at.

But I was talking about history and you can only claim Labor had a better understanding of efficiency in the past if you are determined to ignore historic economic data. As to the present - Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Aidan

The original problem remains and is not solved by anything you just said. Merely increasing the supply of currency, or merely taking from A and giving to B - and paying freight to Canberra both ways - does not increase the creation of net physical wealth. The lack of understanding is your own.

"This is a Big Government budget. A Cradle to Grave Budget. A Put it on the Visa Budget." (Terry Barnes). Good summing-up. He also reckons that it is not a true Coalition budget; but I think that it is - it's from the new-look, Morrison socialist Coalition. The old Coalition, which at least tried to be an alternative to Labor, is gone, probably for good.

John Howard used to fantasise about the Liberal party being a 'broad Church'. What we have now is more like a Sunday school.

ALP Lefty and Deputy Mayor of Melbourne, Nick Reece, was happy to dub Morrison's budget as Labor-lite. The ALP will soon be a thing of the past, and lazy Australians, scared Australians will have just the one party to look after them. No opposition, no democracy. It works in China. Why not here.

Cumberland,
Where the creation of physical wealth is being hampered by a lack of money, increasing the supply of money DOES result in an increase in the creation of net physical wealth.

I'm having trouble comprehending why you're reluctant to accept that. So if you still don't accept it, could you start by answering the following question:
If the government creates money and uses it to directly employ people to do something useful, would that create net physical wealth? If not, why not?