Now that we've killed the car industry perhaps it's a good time to visit some interesting thoughts from "our Yanis" On Australia and its debt.
Metal storm is a case in point....Company now broke! Where were the Australian government? Buy F35's and subs for billions$...One hundred million spent on Metal storm and we would be the No. 1 in making guns. Take a look at our Debt clock and you will see the the Australian people are in debt up to their eyeballs. There is nothing wrong in borrowing if you get a return on your investment. Joh proved that concept right. Built the rail lines, bought the trains and charged $26.50 per ton for cartage. Regards Errol 43
The less we revisit the mindless ramblings of any Keynesian, the better off we all will be. And the ROI is poor and encourages malinvestment where value is actually destroyed, NBN anyone? There's 12 pages on that very topic (albeit most of them are off topic :lol: ) here: http://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-61484-tesla-wall-street-scam-in-plain-sight.html How do governments create wealth then? They don't produce anything except debt and a ballooning public bureaucracy. They don't create wealth, at best they can encourage the creation of wealth by stepping back from interfering in the market. In reality wealth is created by savers who fund talented entrepreneurs who invest in capital goods that enhance the productivity of less talented workers, giving those workers the opportunity to achieve more than they possibly could have achieved if left to their own devices. You can't argue against anyone that thinks public debt is not a problem.
Please explain your take on how "we killed the car industry" as opposed to it being a crappy business model that should have (and would have) died off a decade ago or more but for handouts? A greater verifier is imagine how well it would go at crowd funding....no one in their right mind would fund it. If a business model cant survive on its own merits it should either be rejigged to work or collapse. As for the employees of these industries "poor wee displaced persons " well the writing has been on the wall for many moons. They should have worked on developing other skills and/or been looking into alternate employment. If they choose to hope they are bailed out or basically did nothing well I have no sympathy for them at all. They should have spent some time whittling their own paddle, not waiting for one to be funded for them.
Aaaaaaand here is the actual message of the post. It isn't the people that live off the public purse and produce nothing but debt that are the problem with the economy, it is the upper middle class. You know, the ones that create and run businesses, employ millions of Australians, who, along with their wealthier brethren pay 72 percent of the annual tax base. It's particularly ironic when it comes after a quote about how it is exactly this demographic that drives innovation and economic growth.
No it doesn't. It needs less people who sit there and expect others to do the paddling and then resent them for it and call them greedy. It's not an accident that every declared socialist country on Earth is hallmarked by poverty, starvation and totalitarian suppression of human rights.
This is his Ted talk :- https://www.ted.com/talks/yanis_var..._eat_democracy_unless_we_speak_up?language=en I was skeptical about his credentials before, but I remember noting his comments in this talk about the 2 disconnected mountains of debt and savings - highlighting the problem where it was pretty obvious his solution would be to confiscate one to address the other. A dangerous man to have in any position of responsibility IMHO. I sincerely hope people can see through him.
I think one of the major issues is that we tend to see the economy as a bigger version of our housekeeping budget. Lambasting "keynesians" is all very well, but no government has been doing what Keynes proposed; being save in the good times of markets for public expenditure in the inevitable downturn of markets, and smooth out those depression/bubble curves. Back in his day, Paul Keating said: This is the crux of the issue. Killing off manufacturing by withdrawing government supports (as Yanis says, by being a lone economy where such support is refused), and having no backup plan or provision for the workers discarded in the process. Welcome to the birth of future third generation unemployment and its consequences.
Lets break that down I would disagree with crux of the issue as above as per follows. Killing off manufacturing by withdrawing government supports Why should those in manufacturing expect government support/hand outs/bailouts? Im sure its a good incentive to get into manufacturing but any business should be self sufficient without having to rely on government support/hand outs/ bailouts above and beyond those available to anyone else. This is because if a business model is sound and profitable yet the owner/s of said business can't fund its start up there are entrepreneurs. There is also the ability to take out a loan if one would prefer not to potentially lose a share of their business to entrepreneurs. having no backup plan or provision for the workers discarded in the process. Why is it a business' problem to worry about a backup plan for a worker? The worker should be responsible for his/her own backup plan. The vast majority of those very same workers wouldn't care about the business' if a better offer came up and losing their skills would hurt the business. I get training from my company that is industry related but its not their issue to train me in a different area. That's my choice and my issue. Welcome to the birth of future third generation unemployment and its consequences Ummm. Just no. You can choose to be a victim and blame everyone but yourself. I however choose not to be one and accept responsibility for my career choices.
I'm not sure who you mean by "we", I don't view the government's budget as a bigger version of a household budget. They are two different animals, one is public money the other is private.
In reverse order. A government budget doesn't need to balance since it is operating in a totally different fiscal environment. For one, it can print its own money. Its not like at the end of the year a zero balance is a good idea. Howard discovered that debt was necessary for countries to progress. If the armchair economists and political theorists had their way we'd be throwing out every government that raises a budget deficit. As it is, the political debate has been skewed to this ridiculous issue, when the wellbeing of the society is what should guide the government's actions, not some hypothetical promise to the voters to 'bring the budget into balance'. Third generation unemployment - see Thatcherism and the destruction of mining towns and manufacturing towns such as Sheffield, without more than 'give them the dole' as a plan. Now the society has to deal with those grandchildren, their despair and the issues that come with it: crime, drugs, suicide. Not the responsibility of the business to take care of discarded workers, but it is the general responsibility of the society to take care of its fellows. By either ensuring the business is able to continue operating (best) to assisting retraining and sustenance whilst that occurs (2nd best). As the system stands the business is screwed into the ground for ideological reasons and then the former workers cut adrift. See above. Government support and handouts happen in all countries, in all industries and the idiocy of killing off your manufacturing capacity for ideological reasons without recognising that no other country will operate with your 'fairness' is pure idiocy. for example USA has just increased tariffs on China massively in order to allow its car industry to compete with China. So rather than throw 60 million at Toyota we'd rather close down the industry, dispense with the jobs and spend that 60 million for the dole for them for a year or two in the hope that they'll go off and retrain for 'service industries'. Shiney, I know your libertarian swing on things and hence arguments which lead to survival of the fittest. I don't agree with that proposition and believe that the society has a responsibility to its members (almost as large as the responsibility of its members to the society). The 'hidden hand' is responsible for the destruction of Australian industry at a faster pace than any other country would allow, and our mealy mouthed self-serving politicians have done zero to avoid the industrial wastelands we're creating. The argument is always that the service industry will take up those removed from factory floors. I've yet to see that and perhaps those tens of thousands of displaced car industry workers will be absorbed into the workforce, but more likely they'll sit on the dole, depressed and feeling worthless after 20 years on the shop floor, and their kids and grandchildren will slowly create the dire 'no-go' areas that every other country seems to accept as an inevitable consequence of globalisation.
We are talking broad concepts. You are missing the forests for the trees, I would prefer to think its deliberate rather than you struggle to understand things broken down to a junior highschool level. "The fairness is pure idiocy" kind of points to the fact you just dont get it. Extrapolate my concept/theory of no govt help, If all govts did that its neutral. Thats the great thing with theories, you can expand/adjust and incorporate things (especially if someone needs it spelt out to them). You also cant compare the issues under Thatcher to the issues in the Australian car industry other than "manufacturing" and "lost jobs". Other than that you may as well contrast a car to a banana to justify a cow having spots. *Edit to add - Sheffield over 3 years 50,000...car industry here - 2500?* If I knew up to 3 years in advance the industry I was in was doomed (as per Thatcherism) I would be looking elsewhere. Easy for me to say as I have been in this position (dying arm of an industry), saw the writing on the wall and changed of my own accord. This included moving interstate. Less than ONE YEAR later the company I left was no more. I was taught from a young age to fight my own battles. I struggle to grasp why you are so against people taking responsibility for themselves. To end Julie, your opinion, my opinion and anyone elses opinion amounts to the same as the opinion of a cows to the politicians....all they hear is "Moooooooo." and they will do what they want.
@ Julie, when I have access to a computer I'll address your point about government debt. Regarding your "survival of the fittest" comment, all I will say is that is a strawman. You are falsely portraying my position.
Agree on the mooing. I've seen reference to 200,000 jobs lost which is a couple of largish towns worth of people on the dole. Well done on stepping away from the disaster but as evidenced by a multitude of posts, it seems to me that people here on SS tend to be more motivated, intelligent and aware than most. Moo!
Finally something we agree on. Im also glad you recognise the awareness and intelligence of quite a few members on here and hopefully this recognition leads to you being prepared for a "multitude of posts" challenging your notions. As per above I have no idea what "200,000" or "disaster" you are eluding to but I can live with that.
Julie, I'll only address the first point as it relates to my comments, your beliefs and insistency on pursuing policies of protectionism have been refuted elsewhere, suffice to say that a market that pursues the best interest of consumers is a market that enhances the living conditions of all whereas protectionism raises the cost of living. Back to your budget points. Why doesn't a government need to balance its budget? You refer to a totally different fiscal environment, I'm not sure what you mean by this and why it negates any requirement for the State to be fiscally responsible, especially as they are in the business of appropriating people's money and spending it on their behalf. You argue that it doesn't need to balance its expenditure with its revenue because it can just print money. If this were the case and if it were a good thing then it would suggest that a collection agency (in the form of the ATO) or a planning/distribution agency (in the form of Treasury) is in fact superfluous and all we really require is a small arm of Treasury to oversea the distribution of notes/digits in a computer to the wider population, without any need to audit the effectiveness of such a strategy. Clearly though debt is not just printed out of thin air, but is borrowed at huge expense from external sources and we have a massive bureaucratic machine overseeing how that debt is administered. How effective is that machine in meeting the needs of society? It doesn't matter if debt is immaterial to a government as you would argue. Then you argue that it's not like any zero balance is a good idea. You justify this on the grounds that debt is a necessary tool for the wellbeing of countries to progress. Apart from the logical inconsistency with your previous point, that a budget don't have to balance because a government can just print money - which suggests that debt is irrelevant to progress anyway, you are arguing that a country (and by this we mean its governments) can only progress (or maximise its development) is by borrowing money. Applying that logic, Greece should be at the top of the pile. But then you would argue that it is not the amount of debt that determines the progress that a country makes, but how fiscally responsible a government is with its debt. But then we go back to your first point that a government doesn't need to balance its budget because it can just print money, therefore it doesn't have to be fiscally responsible. On the contrary, countries progress when entrepreneurs value-add ie make improvements to productivity which improves the welfare of all in society. They don't advance when a government goes into debt and borrows money against the potential wealth earned by future taxpayers. Finally, you argue that the political debate is skewed to the notion that the State must be fiscally responsible as opposed to being centred on the well-being of those in our society. Unrestrained spending by governments that are relieved of being accountable for their financial habits, as you would argue in favour, result in malinvestment and rising costs that stunt the potential growth of the well-being of members of our society, Venezuela?. I'm not saying in developed countries such as the UK, Sweden and Australia that it necessarily does more harm than good, I am saying that it creates a system of winners (those showered with favour) and losers (those paying for the favours) and is in fact a ponzi scheme, in that the gains that are promised to flow from our funding of government activity do not actually materialise.
Remember that shiney's voluntarist "swing on things" is a political philosophy limited to the use of violence in society. The issues that you are concerned about are answered by additions that build from (or underpin) the political philosophy. I am a very strong believer that members in a society have a civic duty to support the various social institutions that underpin a civil society and to look out for others and help them when necessary. This is the same as Adam Smith (and others) who fundamentally coupled his social ideas in The Theory of Moral Sentiments with his dry economic ideas in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Although Wealth of Nations can stand alone the two were always meant to be coupled. Saying that I don't think the Government should have a role in welfare, health or education does not mean that I do not want adequate welfare, health and education available to everyone. That is just being a nasty, non-empathetic sociopath. I do want the most disadvantaged people in society to be able to receive a hand-up out of their situation or, if that's not possible (because they are profoundly disabled for example), to be able to live a comfortable enough and fulfilling life. I fully acknowledge that many if not most people go through a period of adversity in their lives due to no fault of their own and I want these people to access assistance (welfare) to help transition them through the hard times. I have posted about this issue on multiple occasions and have started threads that show that, with a bit of thought and ingenuity, it is not only fully possible but has actually happened many times in the past in many ways for people to have access to welfare and for anyone to even be able to obtain free healthcare or education without the involvement of Governments. My research and personal experiences lead me to strongly believe that these fully private social institutions lead (or have led) to better outcomes for the majority of people and for society in general. They actually encourage stronger civic behaviour and instill a greater sense of moral purpose and respect for other people compared to the soul destroying, corrupting, socially divisive welfare institutions typically set-up by Governments. They encourage fellowship and can mobilise very large groups of people to work in concert on many issues. Sure such private institutions can suffer from a wide range of problems, but compared to Government failures they are generally far, far less in magnitude or scope and pretty much always lead to better institutions. (Sort of like Nietzsche's "That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger" compared to the Government's "That which doesn't kill us makes us more overbearing, paternalistic and soul-crushingly anti-human liberty".) Self-help, mutual aid and then benevolence - in that order - with the best benevolence being teaching/encouraging a person to fish and giving them dignity to live their own-lives with respect rather than to give them fish and reducing them to beggars or leeches on society.
Stoic, the 200k comes from articles like this: Paul Keating says that these jobs will be replaced in the Service industries and perhaps they will. He makes the point that 8 hours on the assembly line is pretty horrific. So is life on the dole. I can see the points concerning markets. I just think that in the real world protectionism is everywhere and my experience it's always the poor and powerless who are used in the experiments for the latest notions. Shiney, as I've said often, I think your ideas are admirable but entirely unworkable in the real politik, but I'll fight for your right to keep speaking unencumbered. And yes, I know my thoughts and ideas are theoretical as well, since the numpties, fascists and totalitarians run politics for their own benefits, and if the poor and dispossessed are helped along the way then that's all very nice isn't it.
