Didn't Keating try this? Only to have the Government facing a rental crisis? I think the Government figured out it was cheaper to give a tax break than to have to supply accommodation themselves.
You can't mention Peter Schiff and Steve Keen in the same breath - completely different ideology. Peter wants Governments to slash spending. Take a chainsaw to their budget is a commonly used phrase. Keen wants governments to print more money to pay out everyone ? The true capitalist vs Marxist. I have not heard Peter Schiff talk about a debt Jubilee. The problems arise from our governments, don't look to them for a solution....the banks just took advantage of a corrupt weak and greedy government. If you think our economy has cancer, it was the government who did the smoking. Now you need a surgeon to cut them out.
Marx knew what he was talking about, it's just people don't want to hear the painful truth. "Flushing out" gets harder not vbecause humans get better at running the economy, but because businesses that survived the last bust did so by feeding off of the ones that fail. Then they get fat and bloated. But when you're fat, you have many options available to you to resist the business cycle putting you under for poor decisions - political options, sub-contracting, creating barriers of entry to your market, vertical integration of supply chains etc etc. All these distortions weaken what you would call "the free market", but they are rational actions from an entity that wants to survive in a capitalist system. In the end, this rationalism destroys the very system that supports it. Marx in the end will be right about this, but people don't want to face it. I say this with qualification. After comparing the classical labour theory of value with the neoclassical theory of marginal utility, it's clear that price determination under marginal utility has proven to be more efficient. But having said that, the "free market" in the end is just a conceptual dream and can not actually work in reality. Here's why: We have a free market - prices are freely determined by supply and demand. What if I want to make a contract with a supplier for 5 years at a given price? Under a free market, I should have a right to freely contract with whomever I want and the government's role should merely be to protect property and enforce contracts. But if I lock in a supplier for 5 years, I am actually distorting the market and preventing it from truly determining the price in a supply demand mechanism. So what should the government do? 1) Enforce my freedom to contract? 2) Rescind the contract because it distorts the market? So we have a contradiction. This is just one of many contradictions. Try a human nature argument: A common argument against socialism is that if people are supported no matter what, then nobody is motivated to work and the system will collapse. This is a human nature argument. It can also be argued that humans like certainty. They like to be able to control their environment and be able to plan for the future. This is the need for security. In a free market of floating prices, you cannot plan for the future because you don't know where prices are going to be in a year's time - because remember, all agents in a free market must be "price takers" and never "price makers" for the system to work. But people don't want to be price takers. Humans will eventually collude to achieve their goal of security by distorting the free market mechanism, which will always lead to its corruption. What should the government do? Arrest and punish people who try and distort the market? Force them to always be price takers? Well, couldn't the government also arrest and punish people who didn't work to support their lazy fellow citizens in socialism? Government control is usually not the answer or at least, not government as we know it today. But these human nature arguments are always imprecise and always open to debate. In the end, the economy must provide for the people. With a free market, everything is reduced to a rational preference within that free market. Every single thing. I don't want to be a cog in such a machine because I am a human being and not everything I do should be reducible to a market transaction. As a self-regulating mechanism it is very nice in theory but as a humanising force for society, it is very very lousy. Otherwise, all rich people would be sublimely happy. I think you are right. We need to move forward into what I think is the next stage of societal evolution - economic democracy. We have civil freedoms and somewhat politiocal democracy, but under capitalism, the economy is run like a dictatorship by a ruling class. I see the internet and collaborative non-profit projects as a glimpse of what the future may hold - people do things not because they want to make a profit, but because they want to make something they can use. No one starves. Everyone has some kind of roof above their heads. Everyone has the opportunity for quality education. So important. Everyone is free from all forms of discrimination. You don't need to go further than that. A society will take care of the rest if it is filled with good (and clever) people. My dream would be to see a corporation as a democratic entity where all employees are shareholders. And I don't mean they give me token shares, I mean a genuine shareholder. I get all the money I earn, no higher level manager or VP skims a profit from my work. If the business wants to develop or expand, then it will go to the employees who will contribute to the investment freely (because we will all be earning much more genuine wealth than we are now). The corporation exists not just for profit's sake, but because it is performing a useful role that society needs. We are either at a really exciting stage in human history or a really scary one. But I think we all agree that the system is broken and needs to change. The real fight will be what do we change it to? I would choose more freedom - politically, socially and economically. I can't define what that means exactly, but elements of a free and tranparent price mechanism, genuine value for work and genuine reward for innovation are part of it. Respect, freedom for personal development and humanity is also a part of it. The danger is in times of crisis, people tend to choose authority, because they are scared.
Woah woah woah... back up there big fella. The whole saga around that situation is a very common misconception, which is constantly respun by property investment advocates as a classic example of industry propaganda. This assumed 'fact' pops up pretty regularly (even among stackers), but has to be set straight because people still completely believe the lies. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/24/1061663676588.html There's some VERY strong vested interest in propegating myths and lies about the 'need' for negative gearing from all areas that have a say on policy and tax law and it's literally flung in our collective faces under spin. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...as-14-properties/story-e6frezt9-1111116083951 Our economic and political system is grossly corrupt via a direct conflict of interest. They are meant to institute policy and standards that directly contradict personal interests and the lies and deceit that go around it would make even a used car salesman nod in appreciation. Don't let the industry propaganda confuse you. These people (in whome we place our collective trust to act in our best interests) give less than a damn about fairness, equity and justice. They are simply abusing their positions of relative power to line their own pockets at your expense and will outright LIE to your face to placate you. The entire Negative Gearing debate is a fallacy. It was never needed in the first place and is just spun over and over again as an old wive's tale to scare the rental market in continuing to advocate it's implementation. But it's really just one big LIE continually spun by pollies, banksters and RE industry interests to keep making money for themselves, supplemented by YOUR collective pockets. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/imag...alised-work-20110329-1ceqb.html#ixzz1owiWxRU2 It's VERY important people become aware of the real truth behind our economic, political and malign education system to realise that from top to bottom, the Australian economy is nothing more than a broadscale, criminal ponzi scam where the tax payers are bled dry to promote a minority of risk takers who assume the identity of benign community benefactors but in reality are just thieves.
Humans will never ever ever get better at running an economy. The only humans that should even be listened to are the ones that believe that an economy can't be run centrally and stay the hell out of it, something that no country on earth practices at the moment (Pure Capitalism). Companies that feed off the bad ones can afford to do so (idealistically) because they are run better than the bad ones. Survive on their own merits and are in the position to pick the carcasses clean. When the boom comes again through the artificial government/central bank increases in the velocity of currency hitting an economy they expand and increase profits. When the bubble pops they have to cut the fat to not only remain competitive but to make their bloated debt positions more manageable because the economy will not service their debts. This is how it HAS to be and should not be messed with (not the artificial Government intervention part). Unfortunately for far too long, far too many survive not through good management but through government assistance/corruption. I say this without a socialist bone in my body but, through the boom times artificially created through government intervention, the little guy hurts the most. Sure the "wealth effect" of increasing home, stock and wage prices haves them in a false sense of security as they keep their head above the inflation trap door. But when things turn south, they are the ones that get burnt the most while the fat cats at the top don't have a care in the world about inflation because they are so far above worrying about the cost of living it is a non issue for them as they bang the inflation drums to the parliaments all over the world to start it all over again with another boom and or bailout. This is the part that has to change so that the playing field is fair. Please don't take offence mate but if I were you I would be rocking up to where ever I got that qualification and ask for a refund. Firstly, If you lock in a supplier for 5 years you are not distorting the market at all. Thats utter rubbish. (Although you could argue that every transaction distorts the market short or long as it finds price discovery but that is a whole other topic to be discussed else where). If the supplier has 5 years worth of product to lock in and sees value in the transaction and or wants to hedge himself against future drops then this is not distorting the market at all. Other demanders of that suppliers goods or services had a chance to out bid the winner but chose not to for what ever reason and must take their chances on he remaining supply. The price in the supply and demand mechanism was found right there when the contract was signed. No prevention or distortion there at all. The answer is 1) Enforce your freedom to contract because there is no distortion at all (outside the hair splitting argument to be discussed elsewhere). Correct, already been proven, nothing more to talk about. What? Please explain the parts I highlighted. And so what if people like certainty? What does that matter to the ideal of capitalism? In fact it is probably a very good thing not to have the certainty in the first place (outside of regulations that governments will not debase their money so they don't lose the value of their money/wealth). If one does not have certainty, they must continue to work and save and be productive members of society. If there is the great big socialist safety net where is the incentive? In fact it is certainly as has been proven to be a disincentive. Why would you work harder than someone else when you know the other guy is going to have the same income and standard of living. This is common sense stuff and no amount of intellectual word-smithing is going to change that. People of course don't want to be price takers. So they don't until someone offers a price they are happy to pay. That IS the free market mechanism working perfectly. Without it you have price controls that have proven to be a disaster. There is no corruption in it. Wrong again unequivocally! And this is where the Marxists and all neoclassical economists screw it up. The economy must be such that each individual has the free right to provide for oneself without government intervention or collusion with big business for one group or another to take an unfair advantage or monopoly. The "people" all being allowed to do this make up the economy and do so as a whole much better than any other system. If the people in such an economy chose to allow their taxes to be used to look after those that physically or mentally are incapable of providing for one selves then that is a totally different issue. Economic Democracy would be a disaster and would fail like the ill run and bloated companies that fail every time an economy turns south. I can see it now, workers/shareholders would quickly pay themselves larger salaries at the expense of profits for the collective good. Instantly making individual companies less competitive and inherently less capital is there to grow the companies so they can expand and create future growth. Over time less jobs are available in countries in growing populations and the snowball grows. I agree that there is far too much pull from the ruling class to get the rub of the green and this needs to stop. At the same time the fastest way you protect the individual is to bring about sound money again. You protect them from artificial increases in the cost of living so that Merit and Efficiency can be fully taken advantage of as these are not swallowed up faster by inflation than they can be made in the first place. Which has been happening for the better part of 100 years now. No one starves? Well I have to disagree. If someone is physically and mentally capable of working. If there is a system of sound money where the cost of living is not continually eating away at peoples hard work and they chose not to work, or refuse to work for a wage that they deem to low for their labor then, I have no sympathy for them. I do not see a situation in Australia where this could not be achieved. I am obviously not talking about those that don't have the capacity to provide for themselves. Agree with the opportunity for a quality education. However, no one person or group should be given more money from the collective honey pot than another. Up to year 12 education. The same $ should be supplied to schools per student to matter where the location or the income of the parents. I honestly believe a system like this can provide a quality education for all. If parents chose to add extra money from their own pocket for what they perceive as a superior or religious education then that is up to them. After year 12, user pays and I like the HEC scheme for that. Freedom from discrimination is a no brainer. The Australian government has been discriminating economically against groups in Australia for decades. Todays government would have to be the worst for it. I think your dream is one made up of pipes, and for several reasons I hope so. But we do agree the system is broken and needs to change but we are at polar opposites on where it needs to go. Actually it needs to go back in large part to mid 1800's American style pure Economic Liberty. You talk of freedom but your underlying wants contradict that immensely IMO.
Please don't get the thread locked :/ I'm trying to draw attention to the point I've just made here and (hopefully) reach a few more readers here on the site who read, but haven't left a comment on the whole Negative Gearing MYTH
I would like to see them grandfather the current negatively geared rental properties now. Sure the government helped create the bubble through this but I don't want to see the government burn them directly. If the free market was realised and that still happened (and I think it will for many) then so be it.
Fair enough. I was only asking the question because that is all I have heard since I grew up enough to care. In 1985, I was still tearing around on my BMX whilst chomping down chuppa-chups and sunny-boys, after a tough day at Primary School. Thanks for the info. It's always good to hear the other side of the story.
I'm tired and I'm not going to bother arguing about this - I've done it many times before and I should know better. Good luck pulling us back in time 200 years. Society is built on thinkers with dangerous new ideas that push us to places we have never been before. I don't see the history books filled with praises (and successes) of reactionaries that tried to pull their societies back to "the good ol' days". That is just how the flow of human history works.
No, I'm not part of the problem, not at all. I agreed with a lot of what you said, up until the point where you started slagging off the free market. The inescapable fact is, Earthjade, that the free market is the natural organisation of human economics. As I myself am a Taoist, I can see the inherent virtue of nature, and support the most natural organisation of all systems in the universe, including human economics. Marx was, ultimately, when it all boils down to it, completely wrong about everything. The world now is nothing like it was back in the throes of the industrial revolution. This is the information age mate. Computers are like the Tao. Binary, 1 and 0, is like yin and yang. 64 bit computers are like the 64 shapes of change in the I ching. Old school class envy concerns of the industrial age are so irrelevant now that we are on the cusp of understanding the secrets of the universe through the rapid evolution of our technology. Forget about Marx, he was a hack. Embrace an optimistic future. Backwards looking fools who idealise an irrelevant ideology are part of the problem here, Earthjade, not me.
Corporate sociopathy has the financial system by the throat. Marx was related to the Rothschilds and served his purpose.
