Australian economy

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Re: Australian economy

Postby Dax » 01 May 2017, 14:27

You can be as skeptical as you like, have the runs on the board and have my company setup to cope with the insanity of our economic fantasy land system. Know a few others who have done the same and my staff are really happy with the results, we have no debt, just viable income producing assets. We offer discounts for cash payments and do as many payments ourselves in cash. Get laughed at a lot, but the economics works out to our benefit and you can't operate this way unless you understand the monetary and economic system.

It's the primary reason we put our profits into accommodation, they are foolproof investments if you don't pay to much and we always buy bargains. My entire business life has revolved around viable sustainable investment, you can only get that through accommodation investment, as everyone has to have somewhere to sleep.

Don't see government surpluses as good, unless they are gained from exports. Otherwise they are draining the people of money and that's what they are doing now, without a surplus. The only way you can develop a sustainable and reliable government economy and budget, is by balancing the internal economy, and gaining profit from exports. To get to that point, you have to value add and not export raw materials that come back as products and send our money overseas.

My approach comes for my early life experience, when homeless and lived in the streets from 8-14 by myself. At 13 conned my way into a building apprenticeship, when the boss found out was living rough he set me up in his building site office at 14. Owned my first home at 20, still have it and built a portfolio that is very large, buying cheap houses and renovating them. All are rental, mostly residential or accommodation, but a few commercial premises, excluding the pubs. They are both rural and urban, now we only buy rural as urban is to expensive and loss producing at current prices, so stopped buying urban 10 years ago.

This country could easily be run with a balanced budget, which has enough surplus to cope with extraordinary events. All it takes is innovation, adopting 21st century technologies and developing industries that will provide for the future. To attain that goal, we have to stop exporting raw materials and only export value added materials and goods. Then we would remove the modern fake monetary system and have one that represented the true wealth of the country.

Of course there are other things that would have to happen, like no more immigrants, no subsidies or concessions for big business, no overseas investment and no overseas companies moving or money off shore. But as said before, will never happen, 99% of people are just clones who do what the propaganda says and would never vote for change from the current ideological approach. All they do is vote for the status quo parties, so disaster awaits and our economy is way past its use by date and technically in total collapse.
Dax
puppy
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Apr 2017, 12:15
spamone: Animal

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 04 May 2017, 06:59

Dax - I'm not the least bit sceptical of your ability to do a good job of running a business. Hats off to anyone who runs a business well.

Where I differ is that we should not be comparing a successful strategy for private business management to running a national government budget - the two are not alike. Though this fact is completely counter-intuitive to Joe Public and why it is so is not surprising.

We know that we have to finance our household or business spending - we have to obtain the monetary unit of account that is legal tender within the sovereign territory in which we reside. What Joe Public rarely - if ever - asks himself is "if I had to get this money from my employer or customers in order to actually have it and spend it (or save it).....how did they come to be holding it in the first place? This stuff must have an original source of creation - what is it? Where is it coming from in the first place?

When I was a kid the economy's worth was measured in billions - now it's measured as well over a trillion. Even accounting for inflation - where did all those extra thousands of millions of Australian dollars come from? They must have had a source of creation.

They did and that source is Australian sovereign (federal) government deficit spending - when they are running a deficit, they are putting more into the economy than they are sucking out through taxation - over and above borrowing (which has limits), how could we come to be holding something that they and they alone can issue if they never ran a deficit? The answer is quite simply that we couldn't.

The state governments are not monetarily sovereign and cannot do this - their are no banana dollars here in Queensland, no croweater dollars down JM (HBS Guy's ) way. They all use the federal government's currency of issue and just like the rest of us, they must finance their spending and apply state level charges taxes etc.

But the federal government does not tax us because it needs the money to spend. They can create as much as they like at the stroke of a keyboard (not the same thing as saying that they should spend to infinity). But their currency has no intrinsic value. So to give it value, they demand a certain amount back from us in the form of a tax obligation - they won't accept gold or precious stones, US dollars, Japanese Yen or any other currency, they will accept one medium and one medium alone.....the very same one that only exists because they issued it in the first place. This gives this otherwise utterly worthless bunch of tokens and blips on spreadsheets value because now by their own sovereign decree nothing can happen without it. If you want to work or do business in this sovereign territory then you must acquire the federal governments currency in order to be able to surrender some of it back to them.

This is the main reason they tax us even though they can create as many $AUSD as they like at the touch of a button - to create value for something that is not physical but exists in abstraction (but is real nonetheless). This is what money is - it's rules and laws. It's the authority of the sovereign state made manifest. My name suggests a lot about my political viewpoint but I fully understand that money is not some evil thing (though it certainly is the cause of much evil) - it is absolutely crucial and is part of the identity of a sovereign nation.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 04 May 2017, 13:34

To attain that goal, we have to stop exporting raw materials and only export value added materials and goods.


you have to value add and not export raw materials that come back as products and send our money overseas.


I actually have some sympathy with this point of view. No matter how much we export our dirt for, it will never be worth more than the cost of importing value-added goods. In any case, just because it adds to GDP doesn't mean that it all enters the domestic economy since mining in this country is mostly owned by foreigners and that's where plenty of the revenue ends up going.

By largely failing to invest in things more complex than digging holes and raising crops and livestock (not that those are bad things in themselves) we are guaranteeing that growth drains out through the external sector as you note, as we import great amounts of what we consume rather than producing things ourselves. We are also dumbing ourselves down by relying on people on the other side of the world to do all the "smart", innovative, high-tech work for us to buy from them, depriving ourselves of countless opportunities since new discoveries and applications always end up spinning off R&D in existing products.

So I would like to see a lot more home grown science, technology and consumer good innovation. The challenges would of course be in becoming and remaining competitive with foreigners with access to huge pools of super-cheap labour and mercantilists who engage in currency manipulation and all manner of other strategies to favour their exports.

This country could easily be run with a balanced budget, which has enough surplus to cope with extraordinary events.


Any amount of money needed to respond to extrordinary events is always available to the federal government at the stroke of a keyboard. This is a simple fact - it's why we call it a fiat currency because that's what it is, literally "let it be done". A budget surplus does not give them a single cent more capacity to spend regardless of how it came about, nor does a budget deficit give them a cent less ability to spend. The surplus/deficit is an accounting identity - treasury is not a big money bin like the one owned by Scrooge McDuck. There's nothing physically there, just numbers.

The only realistic constraint (apart from politics and ideology) are the real resources that are available to be procured. If the real resources aren't there, no amount of money will buy what isn't available.

So while I definately agree that we would be better off producing a wide range of our own high-tech, value added products rather than just exporting food and dirt, I do so for reasons other than pursuing a balanced/surplus budget. I don't think it's smart to be all but totally reliant on people on the other side of the world for everything we consume as a modern country.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 05 May 2017, 07:01

Then we would remove the modern fake monetary system and have one that represented the true wealth of the country.


One thing though - if the sole monopoly issuer of Australian dollars ceased net spending/debt issuance altogether and declared that as a matter of policy, the Australian government would only spend what it "earned" from revenue arising from an export manufacturing economy.........how long might foreign held reserves of Australian dollars hold up so our local people can be paid in currency they can spend? Our local industries and their employees can't spend other currencies here, even though foreign contracts themselves might be specified in foreign currency such as US dollars - I can guarantee they will need to be paid in Australian dollars.

Another example might be that that if the US government who are the sole monopoly issuer of the US dollar were able to successfully remain in surplus forever......how could the rest of the world keep holding reserves of US dollars? It would get harder and harder as time went by.

Is an Australian dollar created by legislative fiat that works it's way out into the world and then comes back to government via a trade surplus somehow superior in value to one that never left the domestic economy? They are intrinsically the same thing, irrespective of whether we are a net exporting economy or not.

There is no need whatsoever to change the existing monetary system to one that seems less "fake" to some in order for us to be a manufacturing export led economy. We would need to massively restructure and re-engineer our productive economy but that is completely separate to the monetary system itself. I personally would very much like to see this country much more capable of producing it's own high quality, high end consumer goods but that is a separate issue.

Again, we should not be thinking of the federal government budget as functioning like a business as that is not it's role. It's role -in part - is to ensure that there are enough Australian dollars in circulation so that there is enough demand for actual business to thrive.

When the shit hit the fan in 2008 and the government announced a large stimulus package to bolster demand and stave off recession - did you make a point of turning away customers on the rationale that they were coming to you with "fake money" created by stimulus that would have to be "paid for by more heavily taxing us all later down the track?".

I'll bet you didn't.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Dax » 05 May 2017, 10:15

You're living in the past, I'm looking at the future, totally different things. Constantly going over the same merry go round situation and claiming it is the only way, which you are doing, is typical ideological denial and refusal to look for or accept change for a better future.

Not interested in discussing what is already known and failing, that's like saying our boat is sinking, but we shouldn't use the bung provided because it's not what's been done and just compensating for the water influx is the best way to stop sinking.

That's pure ideological thinking and fatalistic for the future. We have to change the economic approach and direction, the same with monetary policy. It's not working, so why harp on keeping it going, much better to discuss means of reversing the ideological process destroying the future. There is only one way to do that, run the country like a successful shareholder business, where the actual shareholders are in control and not the deluded management. We need a monetary policy that represents the facts and not the delusionary claims of cloned ideologues.

It''s a simple process, stop exporting raw materials, develop 21st century climate change friendly industry and energy production. Support small business development of 21st century industry, commodities and services, introduce import taxes, ban junk imports and only export excess fully value added commodities. Make people responsible for their health outcomes and introduce 4 years of community work experience for all people from 16- 20.

This would remove youth unemployment, slash crime rates, support essential services and provide a fully informed responsible workforce everyone can participate in. This approach would develop new industry, balance budgets and establish a monetary system that support our countries develop and balance our books every year with export surpluses providing research and development projects. If we developed our own transport fuels and rapidly changed to electric transport, we would save billions in money lost to overseas interests.
Dax
puppy
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Apr 2017, 12:15
spamone: Animal

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 05 May 2017, 13:37

You're living in the past, I'm looking at the future, totally different things. Constantly going over the same merry go round situation and claiming it is the only way, which you are doing, is typical ideological denial and refusal to look for or accept change for a better future.


This is a bit of a silly claim Dax. We are both living in the present and I am simply describing how things actually function in the present versus the way the are typically and broadly misunderstood to function. And some of that is as things that are gone in the past.

You aren't reading closely enough - you are not making the distinction between what I am actually saying, which is: this is the way the economy and the thing we call money actually function in day-to-day operational reality and your interpretation of what I'm saying which seems to be this is the only way. There are many ways to actually apply the running of the existing modern day fiat monetary system - I am simply describing what I think is best from my personal point of view.

For example, the CEO of a firm that employs large numbers of workers in the lower half of the labour market might fully understand the realities of the modern monetary system and may be fully aware that sovereign government could at any time choose to ensure enough demand existed within the economy to banish the scourge of involuntary unemployment from existence - and we've done this successfully before in this country, for several decades at a stretch before the Fraser government abandoned the policy instituted by the Curtain Labor government around WW2.

But that same individual may hold the personal view that a certain amount of poverty and joblessness is desirable, since an environment where anyone who needs a job can always find one is an environment that hands considerable power to workers, both as individuals and as labour unions. As Menzies pointed out (and railed against) employers main weapon of the ability to threaten workers with unemployment is not greatly effective when the worker can say "if you will not employ me, there is always somebody else who will". That this hands workers in general more bargaining power to push for better pay and conditions should be obvious.

From my point of view - working class, progressive political outlook - I regard the deliberate maintainence of a pool of joblessness and disadvantage at the bottom of our society as deplorable, morally reprehensible and in need of fixing.

So there's two people who both realize how the modern economy actually functions - but have two different approaches based on their individuals views of the world.

That's the distinction you haven't made.

It''s a simple process


I'm on board with some of what say but I think implementing everything you want would be far from simple.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 06 May 2017, 10:26

We have to change the economic approach and direction, the same with monetary policy. It's not working, so why harp on keeping it going, much better to discuss means of reversing the ideological process destroying the future.


I trust you have noted that I have already made it clear that this is my position as well.

It is not the actual system of modern state money that is failing to deliver solid, equitable outcomes - it is the way in which it's governing and application are approached. It is the way in which a skin of neo-liberal ideals have been stretched over the actual real system in order to satisfy (in part) the ideological objective of presenting it as something that it is not - and to deliver wealth to those at the top at the expense of the many beneath. It is why for example, they continually fail to return the promised budget surplus, despite significant numbers of them having been successful in private business in previous careers - the sovereign government budget is not a business and cannot ultimately be forced to function as one.

Indeed, the original driver of the current sovereign government budget surplus fetish is neo-liberalism itself. Squeezing government spending and allowing the expansion of private sector debt are a cornerstone of the neo-liberal ideal.

We need a monetary policy that represents the facts and not the delusionary claims of cloned ideologues.


Not clear on exactly what you mean here. If you're saying that our monetary policy has been grossly mis-applied then I would agree. But that is part of the neo-liberal paradigm. It places primacy on monetary policy as a tool for generating policy outcomes and rejects the (often much superior) use of fiscal policy since government spending is the antithesis of neo-liberalism.

We appear to be getting close to - if we have not actually arrived at - the point where monetary policy can do no more. We have led the official interest rate down about as far as it can keep being passed on (there might be a little bit of fuel left in the tank but surely not much) and as a result we have been left with household debt at stratospheric levels and a serious housing bubble, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. Other polices designed to encourage the bubble have been in place of course, but the price of borrowing is a key factor in how much can be poured into this thing.

stop exporting raw materials


I'm not sure we should actually stop exporting raw materials. Our continent is awash in many kinds of valuable raw materials, far more than we could use even if we turned them into value-added. A country rich in valuable raw resources that refuses to sell any of them at all might be seen by the powerful as a valuable target for acquisition by whatever means necessary. Barring a massive investment boom - such as the one recently gone bust - large-scale mining is actually a tiny employer and doesn't provide many jobs overall. Our cities are not short of labour for manufacturing jobs. I think we could keep digging dirt while producing value-added at the same time. We wouldn't need to import the raw materials to turn them into finished goods since we already have them in plenty.

So we should have a comparative advantage there.We would just need the guts to actually enforce the fact that they are ours - observe the gas crisis.

develop 21st century climate change friendly industry and energy production


Sounds good.

Support small business development of 21st century industry, commodities and services,


Sounds good.

introduce import taxes, ban junk imports and only export excess fully value added commodities


Again, I have some sympathy with this position. We would have to work our way around international agreements and treaties that would slam all of those things as outright protectionism. Powerful vested interests would seek to punish us and sabotage us through the WTO and other means. Nonetheless, I agree that we should never have basically just thrown away the ability to make stuff. It was stupid to allow that to happen and I would like to see it returned to our shores.

Make people responsible for their health outcomes


Not clear on exactly what you mean.

introduce 4 years of community work experience for all people from 16- 20.

This would remove youth unemployment, slash crime rates, support essential services and provide a fully informed responsible workforce everyone can participate in.


I agree with what I perceive to be your general line of thinking here. Unemployment is a scourge that creates all manner of negative consequences for society and badly needs to be addressed. Our nation had all but completely banished involuntary unemployment for around 30 years, before full employment was abandoned with the rise of neo-liberalism.

So without the intent to trigger an argument :bgrin I'm going to suggest what I personally think would be the most effective solution.

I agree with the intent but there is a problem with work experience programmes - they don't of themselves create meaningful jobs for the unemployed to go to afterward. How do I know this? Apart from much research by professional labour market analysts such as Bill Mitchell and others conclusively demonstrating this to be the case, I myself have experienced it. I walked out of high school - and smack into the 1990 recession. Even for qualified tradies, job opportunities in this resource town were virtually non-existent at the time. I recall the endless hoops we young jobseekers were made to jump through, the endless programmes to give us work skills, presentation skills etc etc. All fine - but at the end of it there were still no jobs to go to. Economic reality - the unemployed cannot find jobs that do not exist at the time. I can have the best boat and the best bait and tackle but if the fish aren't there then I won't be able to catch them regardless.

The existence of such programmes in the absence of a labour market that actually wants more workers ends up leading to people being sceptical and derisive. I recall while participating in one such programme being run through a local TAFE, being told by a staff member who was an acquaintance of my parents that one of the programme co-ordinators had received a dressing down from management for too often and too loudly speaking the facts: "we're training these kids for jobs that aren't out there".

So such programmes themselves may not be worthless but if they do not lead to actual jobs because the actual jobs are not out there to be had, then their value becomes limited.

I am in favour of the idea of a job guarantee, whereby the federal governments stands ready to create as many jobs (these would typically be what would be described as "menial" but that should not carry a derisive tone) as is necessary to ensure that all those who require a job can find one. It is simply a fact - our capitalist market economy does not at all times desire to use all the willing, available labour and involuntary idleness results. Along with all the attendant negative consequences.

Renumeration would be set at - and ONLY at - the minimum wage and conditions set down by legislation to avoid the accusation that giving all unemployed people the opportunity of a job creates inflation. When the cycle turns and conditions improve, employers could bid these typically low-skilled (again not implying derisiveness) out of the programme by merely offering a little better than the bare minimum set down by legislation.

We could once again banish unemployment. Note that ensuring that everyone who needs a job can get one would be fiercely opposed by those whose ideological bent favours a pool of poverty and disadvantage at the bottom of society - as sacrificial lambs against inflation and to help dampen the power of labour both as individuals and unions.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Dax » 07 May 2017, 11:59

We are a long way apart Lefty, you're talking from narrow experience and having discovered how the monetary system works in the last few years, I'm talking about a long experience and known how it works for decades longer than you've been alive. You seem to think you have discovered something new, whilst everyone in successful business I know, has been aware of how it works for a very long time and worked around that knowledge to stay ahead of the pack.

It is the actual way the monetary system works that's stuffing things up, because fantasy can't overcome reality and the monetary system is unreal in every sense, so destined for failure no matter what they do. The planet and universe work on simple unmovable principles, reality and change. Ideological humanity work on the principle if I want it then I can have it and can do it in whatever way I need, to get what I want. There is no balance, no compensation for reality, nor workable parallels, or backups, just want and get at any cost. That's why the current type of monetary policy can never work and never has. Only monetary and economic policy that is based in reality can work and nothing else.

Even though I think forward in my economic planning, use a many centuries old methodology for business practise, that has always been successful, compared to modern monetary and economic practise. If our monetary system was operated on those principles, we would have a balanced progressive budget. My advantage over you is, you have only ever experienced one type of monetary and economic policy and direction, I've experienced at least 2 others, one which was used after WW2 until the 1970's and one used successfully over millenniums.

Our country could do the same and forget the rest of the worlds economy for a while, as we would base our economy and monetary policies on the reality of a viable future and nit fantasy land thinking. That may sound airy fairy, but it's not as we have the resources and ability to be able to develop a sustainable economy and not a finite fatalistic economy as we have at the moment. We don't need foreign investment, we don't need foreign ownership of anything and the last thing we need is monopoly ownership and privately run services. They are what is destroying the future, we need lots of small business and people owned and operated services, not one or two companies and ideological elites controlling everything. We also have to remove support for ideologies completely and make them responsible for what they have done to life on the planet.

Of course nothing will change, 99% of the population are in denial and refuse to take responsibility for their footprint on the planet. Which could mean the ways thing are being run, we will see the end of our societies and the removal of most of the human population by 2031.
Dax
puppy
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Apr 2017, 12:15
spamone: Animal

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 09 May 2017, 12:38

test
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 09 May 2017, 13:16

Seems to work from this pc - maybe an issue with the server the other one runs through? Dunno.

We are a long way apart Lefty, you're talking from narrow experience and having discovered how the monetary system works in the last few years, I'm talking about a long experience and known how it works for decades longer than you've been alive. You seem to think you have discovered something new, whilst everyone in successful business I know, has been aware of how it works for a very long time and worked around that knowledge to stay ahead of the pack.


Actually it's closer to a decade and I've been around long enough to have lived through Australia's worst recession since the great depression and not too many years before I count 50 candles so I think I might be just slightly more worldly than you're implying - you sound like my dad 20 years ago:bgrin

I'm quite aware that some of these concepts pre-date me, some pre-date you and some pre-date anyone alive today. But my experience has been that far from decades of business experience bestowing an understanding of how the economy actually functions, a person can be born, live their life and die without ever seeing something in front of their face.

You must know a very special group of business people because I don't recall having come across too many advocating a course of action that does not involve attempting to run balanced/surplus budgets without any regard to the economic and social consequences (and the fact that the attempt will generally fail anyway). What I have come across is people who tell me "you know this stuff isn't new - I learned about sectoral balances etc at uni in the 60's" - and then proceed to extrapolate their experience up to construct the government budget as functioning just like a private business, which is profoundly factually incorrect. What I typically see is people who either disregard or do not fully understand the actual nature and origin of money and the role of the monetary sovereign - despite claims to the contrary.

It has been very clear to me that no amount of success in private business automatically equals a proper understanding of how the modern economy functions as a whole - so you'll have to forgive me for having expressed some scepticism.

It is the actual way the monetary system works that's stuffing things up, because fantasy can't overcome reality and the monetary system is unreal in every sense, so destined for failure no matter what they do.


Sorry Dax - but statements like that have no basis in reality.

The modern monetary system has much greater potential for human benefit than it has ever been used for (assuming the real resources exist to be brought to bear). But some people are so rigid in their thinking that they cannot let go of old ideas and are literally welded to them. The tendency to endlessly frame the overall economy as being identical to a business scaled up creates an outlook that is skewed from reality.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Dax » 10 May 2017, 07:35

Lefty wrote:Seems to work from this pc - maybe an issue with the server the other one runs through? Dunno.

We are a long way apart Lefty, you're talking from narrow experience and having discovered how the monetary system works in the last few years, I'm talking about a long experience and known how it works for decades longer than you've been alive. You seem to think you have discovered something new, whilst everyone in successful business I know, has been aware of how it works for a very long time and worked around that knowledge to stay ahead of the pack.


Actually it's closer to a decade and I've been around long enough to have lived through Australia's worst recession since the great depression and not too many years before I count 50 candles so I think I might be just slightly more worldly than you're implying - you sound like my dad 20 years ago:bgrin

I'm quite aware that some of these concepts pre-date me, some pre-date you and some pre-date anyone alive today. But my experience has been that far from decades of business experience bestowing an understanding of how the economy actually functions, a person can be born, live their life and die without ever seeing something in front of their face.

You must know a very special group of business people because I don't recall having come across too many advocating a course of action that does not involve attempting to run balanced/surplus budgets without any regard to the economic and social consequences (and the fact that the attempt will generally fail anyway). What I have come across is people who tell me "you know this stuff isn't new - I learned about sectoral balances etc at uni in the 60's" - and then proceed to extrapolate their experience up to construct the government budget as functioning just like a private business, which is profoundly factually incorrect. What I typically see is people who either disregard or do not fully understand the actual nature and origin of money and the role of the monetary sovereign - despite claims to the contrary.

It has been very clear to me that no amount of success in private business automatically equals a proper understanding of how the modern economy functions as a whole - so you'll have to forgive me for having expressed some scepticism.

It is the actual way the monetary system works that's stuffing things up, because fantasy can't overcome reality and the monetary system is unreal in every sense, so destined for failure no matter what they do.


Sorry Dax - but statements like that have no basis in reality.

The modern monetary system has much greater potential for human benefit than it has ever been used for (assuming the real resources exist to be brought to bear). But some people are so rigid in their thinking that they cannot let go of old ideas and are literally welded to them. The tendency to endlessly frame the overall economy as being identical to a business scaled up creates an outlook that is skewed from reality.


Coming from someone who has no experience in running a successful million dollar business and claiming those who have done this for many decades, don't understand how the monetary system and modern economy works, is ludicrous. My skepticism is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and have only read about your fantasy, that only you know how the economy works, yet you seem to have no experience or understanding in business operation.

Have been through a number of recessions, the worst was not in the 1990's, but in the early 80's and lasted almost 3 years where interest rates rose to over 18% for mortgages and over 27% for other loans. Many many businesses went broke and hundreds of thousand lost their homes, those in small to medium business who understood how the economy worked, were prepared and survived. Then we have the 1960's and 70's recessions. Like other sensible business, we don't revolve around what the government does fiscally, we concentrate on the reality of the situation and that means, balance and viable secure assets and no debt.

if your claims were correct, there would be no deficit, only surplus. However you conveniently forget that governments doing business overseas must adhere to common economic and monetary policies and if they continue to act as you claim, there has to be collapses because you can't make something out of nothing.

if a government is going to deal outside its economic borders, then it must in a business many and the same goes for our internal economy. No balance means no progress, just debt and confusion. Those who have a mentality like you, are running our country and it's a disaster, yet you claim it is the only way forward, hilarious and fatalistic in the extreme. Which you will discover over the coming future, as they produce money and economic policy out of an empty hat.
Dax
puppy
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Apr 2017, 12:15
spamone: Animal

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 15 May 2017, 06:07

Test
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 15 May 2017, 06:45

Coming from someone who has no experience in running a successful million dollar business and claiming those who have done this for many decades, don't understand how the monetary system and modern economy works, is ludicrous. My skepticism is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and have only read about your fantasy, that only you know how the economy works, yet you seem to have no experience or understanding in business operation.


It is very clear to me that a full understanding of the modern monetary system as it actually exists is not a prerequisite for running most types of private business successfully. What is it that you're not grasping here Dax? You continue to project the national sovereign government budget and he economy as a whole as a larger version of a private business and then claim because one understands running a private business, they therefore understand running - and leading - a whole sovereign nation. How difficult can it be to grasp the fact that the two are not alike? All I ever see and hear is business people and their political arms in the various chambers of commerce and business councils recommending that government get the deficit down and run government more like a business. It's blindingly obvious that they don't understand the modern economy as a whole, or they would not recommend such a self-defeating course of action. Just like John and Jane Doe householder, they are taking what they know from personal experience and then extrapolating that up to the level of the whole - a level at which the rules that apply to a household or a business no longer hold true entirely.

Have been through a number of recessions, the worst was not in the 1990's, but in the early 80's and lasted almost 3 years where interest rates rose to over 18% for mortgages and over 27% for other loans. Many many businesses went broke and hundreds of thousand lost their homes, those in small to medium business who understood how the economy worked, were prepared and survived. Then we have the 1960's and 70's recessions. Like other sensible business, we don't revolve around what the government does fiscally, we concentrate on the reality of the situation and that means, balance and viable secure assets and no debt.


By my reckoning, the worst was 1990 - by the measure of unemployment. You can use whatever measures you like but unemployment is a pretty good indicator of how widespread misery is and also how well business in general is doing - business need employees to function and the higher the unemployment rate, the worse conditions are likely to be in a general sense.

Image

You may concentrate on whatever works for you over the cycle but anyone who says that the governments fiscal approach is of no consequence to business is likely one of those who clearly does not fully grasp the big picture. You seem to be struggling with the concept of things in aggregate. If the government's fiscal approach is contractionary, business conditions in general are likely to suffer without some kind of offset - this is a simple fact. Do you really think that there is a strategy that will allow all businesses to survive/remain at size when government causes broader spending to begin drying up? You keep suggesting "I do this, this works for me - therefore, if everybody does it and does it properly, it will work for everybody regardless of what government does." Do you understand the term "fallacy of composition?"

if your claims were correct, there would be no deficit, only surplus. However you conveniently forget that governments doing business overseas must adhere to common economic and monetary policies and if they continue to act as you claim, there has to be collapses because you can't make something out of nothing.


Not sure what you're trying to say. Did you miss the part where most governments must be in deficit so that the private sector can be in surplus? You also appear to continue to struggle with the intangible yet real nature of money. Of course you can't make something physical out of nothing, you must be able to command real resources first. But did you require something physical in order to observe that two plus two equals four? You can't hold a mathematical equation in your hand but it exists nonetheless, right? The rule that says you aren't allowed to speed is an intangible abstract concept as well, you can't physically hold a rule or law in your hands - but go ahead and break it and you'll see just how real it is. If you can't grasp the idea of an abstract concept being a real thing with real outcomes despite not being physical, then you will not understand the nature of money.

if a government is going to deal outside its economic borders, then it must in a business many and the same goes for our internal economy. No balance means no progress, just debt and confusion. Those who have a mentality like you, are running our country and it's a disaster, yet you claim it is the only way forward, hilarious and fatalistic in the extreme. Which you will discover over the coming future, as they produce money and economic policy out of an empty hat.


Dax, you're getting over excited here and falsely conflating my thinking with that of those in charge - please don't do it, it's called lying. It's blindingly obvious that those who are running the country do not share my way of thinking and do not run the system as it could be -for maximum benefit to all of us.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 16 May 2017, 06:59

I used to have all this data from the RBA and ABS on hand, but now that I spend a great deal of time working with gemstones instead of arguing about this stuff, much of it has been lost or salted away. It would require some time to dig it all up again.

Have been through a number of recessions, the worst was not in the 1990's, but in the early 80's and lasted almost 3 years where interest rates rose to over 18% for mortgages and over 27% for other loans.


That didn't sound quite accurate to me from recollection. The sky-high mortgage interest rates you're referring to actually occurred not in the early 80's but at the end of that decade (though they were still high early as well), reaching a peak in 1990 - this is part of what tipped the country into the worst recession since the great depression. The one that I walked smack into as a young school leaver.

Interest rates were higher on the eve of the 1990 recession and unemployment ended up worse than the 80's recession as well. But this is really just splitting hairs - both were bad times.

But I think it's fair to say that the youth of my generation simply did not have the same employment opportunities as the youth of yours. Do you agree?

You seem to be pining for an era long gone, which is fair enough. Strong growth, very low unemployment - I trust you realize that this situation ran coincident with big-spending Keynesian government budgets and a policy of full employment? Your generation were the beneficiary of the very kind of government budgeting that is the antithesis of government run as a business, seeking balanced/surplus budgets.


As an aside regarding interest rates - you do understand that the impact of that rate of interest is relative don't you? Today's rock-bottom low mortgage rates are not anywhere near as low as they seem because our deregulated financial system has allowed private debt - most particularly mortgages - to balloon to levels without precedent. The rate of interest may be lower but the interest is being paid on much larger debts proportionately. Which actually has little effect on my household because you and I are a little more alike in certain parts of our outlook than you realize Dax.

We have never taken view of debt that has been typical for our generation since the turn of the millennium. We took out a mortgage at the end of the 1990's when prices were a fraction of today and credit was very much tighter to obtain (again, note the obvious relationship). It was tiny compared to what people my age and younger typically owe - we still have some but it is even tinier today. We have never sought to extend the size of the debt, only to pay it down. As everyone around us splurged wildly on easy credit - and some looked disparagingly upon us as "Ma and Pa Kettle" - we never bought into the investment property craze or borrowing great sums to renovate for the purpose of flogging our home as an investment, trading up etc. The resource boom came and property prices in this resource town exploded - we continued on our path, just clear the debt as fast as possible, others were racking up debt like drunken sailors, swinging their dicks about how much money they were earnming (FFS, any donkey was able to get paid $150 000 during the boom), how many IP's and flash toys they owned. Well now the boom is over, the tide has gone out and many of them aree seen to have been swimming naked. The smart ones used the big money to pay out their debts altogether - but many of them just racked up more and more. Now plenty of them have gone bankrupt as the big money jobs dried up, owing jumbo-sized investment property loans that they can't afford and the properties are now worth less than they owe on them anyway.

That's exactly what we thought was going to happen and we were right. Oh no, this boom was supposedly different, this one was going to last at least half a century as China boomed endlessly. Oh dear, that didn't quite turn out right did it?

So our debt stayed small - and interest rates were brought down to rock bottom to facilitate the fact that everyone else was expanding theirs greatly. That has worked out very well for us, though it hasn't been good for the country.

So my view of household debt is probably much the same as yous Dax. Where we differ is how and where such things apply in the overall big picture. If government, households and businesses are all to be permanent net savers then we had better have an almightly external surplus - otherwise the governments attempt to "save" will basically ensure that the private sector overall cannot.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 17 May 2017, 04:33

You supposed historical claims which are wrong, but conveniently you only cover a few decades. Which is a good laugh and one expected of ideologues, deny, attack, make false claims. Until 1975 when Fraser was elected, the countries budget was in surplus, the governments budget worked on the countries viable assets.


It's been a long time and all the high-quality historical data I used to have is buried somewhere but this seems reasonably consistent with what I remember.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1688260/centric-wealth-debts-and-deficit-table.pdf

Count the surplus budgets from 1975 back to before World War 1 - you'll see that you don't need two hands to do so, five fingers are about sufficient.

You're recalling the situation wrongly Dax - long runs of surplus budgets pre-Fraser simply did not exist, just as I have told you they did not, except a few tiny smatterings here and there. The golden era you long to return to was one mainly defined by big-spending Keynesian government budgets. National government budget surpluses were almost absent in those years.

If I feel inclined to keep digging for the historical data I used to keep, I can also show you that there have been very few years where the country has recorded an external surplus overall.

So the national government budget has been mostly in deficit for a long time and the external sector has also been mostly in deficit for a long time - the sky is still firmly in place and has not fallen in. There have been long stretches of government budget deficits and external deficits both coinciding with strong growth, low unemployment and general prosperity. I'm not arguing that I would not like to see changes made, I'm just pointing to the facts.

There is nothing wrong with the monetary system Dax - it is probably potentially about the best we have ever had with regards to the ability to advance the general well-being. The great tragedy is that has never been used that way or even acknowledged for what it actually is. It is indeed unfortunate that the inception of the modern monetary system coincided with the rise of a new fashionable consensus among western world policy makers - the consensus of neo-liberalism. It is the neo-liberal socio-economic approach that has led to the problems we are having now, the monetary system is a separate thing altogether.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby HBS Guy » 17 May 2017, 21:06

Australian wages have stagnated at a record low, growing a just 1.9% over the last six months, throwing an early cloud over the Turnbull government’s optimistic projections for wages growth in last week’s budget.

With the cost of living rising at 2.1%, it means real wages have declined by 0.3% over the past year.

The news is a small blow to the Reserve Bank’s and Treasury’s hopes that wages growth will accelerate in 2018 and 2019, economists say.


Third of Australian youth have no job or are underemployed, report finds
Read more
The Bureau of Statistics released figures on Wednesday, showing wages growth for the March quarter.

They show trend wages growth has been declining since mid-2012, from an annual 3.8% to 1.9%.

Malcolm Turnbull has said he would return the federal budget to surplus by 2020-21 on the back of wages growth rising to 2.5% in 2016-17 and 3.5% by 2019-20, but economists say that’s already looking unlikely.

Advertisement

They also say the RBA may now have to keep the official cash rate at a record low for longer, even though the low interest rates have been fuelling runaway house prices in Sydney and Melbourne.

JP Morgan economist Tom Kennedy says wage growth is “stuck in the doldrums” because of the deterioration in the labour market, with the jobless rate climbing from 5.7% to 5.9%.

“That said, actual wage outcomes have been even softer than the level of the jobless rate would otherwise suggest, with an unemployment rate of 5.9% historically associated with wage growth closer to 3%,” he said.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/17/australian-wages-growing-more-slowly-than-cost-of-living?CMP=soc_568
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 42696
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 18 May 2017, 06:55

HBS Guy wrote:
Australian wages have stagnated at a record low, growing a just 1.9% over the last six months, throwing an early cloud over the Turnbull government’s optimistic projections for wages growth in last week’s budget.

With the cost of living rising at 2.1%, it means real wages have declined by 0.3% over the past year.

The news is a small blow to the Reserve Bank’s and Treasury’s hopes that wages growth will accelerate in 2018 and 2019, economists say.


Third of Australian youth have no job or are underemployed, report finds
Read more
The Bureau of Statistics released figures on Wednesday, showing wages growth for the March quarter.

They show trend wages growth has been declining since mid-2012, from an annual 3.8% to 1.9%.

Malcolm Turnbull has said he would return the federal budget to surplus by 2020-21 on the back of wages growth rising to 2.5% in 2016-17 and 3.5% by 2019-20, but economists say that’s already looking unlikely.

Advertisement

They also say the RBA may now have to keep the official cash rate at a record low for longer, even though the low interest rates have been fuelling runaway house prices in Sydney and Melbourne.

JP Morgan economist Tom Kennedy says wage growth is “stuck in the doldrums” because of the deterioration in the labour market, with the jobless rate climbing from 5.7% to 5.9%.

“That said, actual wage outcomes have been even softer than the level of the jobless rate would otherwise suggest, with an unemployment rate of 5.9% historically associated with wage growth closer to 3%,” he said.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/17/australian-wages-growing-more-slowly-than-cost-of-living?CMP=soc_568


The results of the system being mis-used by a pack of dickheads. They are depriving the economy of spending (as much as they dare politically at this point anyway) in the pursuit of balanced/surplus budgets and the RBA's magazine is almost out of bullets, if not empty already - it's not possible to stimulate private money creation through accelerating credit growth faster and faster any more, we can't make the price of borrowing money much cheaper, if at all. Not to Australians anyway, though given our cultural attitudes I'm sure we'd flog every last thing to foreigners if we were encouraged to and think about the consequences.....well, never probably.

Credit growth is still positive but has been slowing for the past year and a half.

That said, actual wage outcomes have been even softer than the level of the jobless rate would otherwise suggest, with an unemployment rate of 5.9% historically associated with wage growth closer to 3%,” he said


This is because the situation is worse than the level of the jobless rate would suggest because we have higher underemployment than has previously existed, workers who want and need more working hours but are unable to find them. They are still counted as employed in the official stats but very obviously do not have the same power to spend and consume goods and services as the fully-employed.

Dax, are you paying attention? I reckon it's a pretty good bet that we are facing a situation unlike the recessions you've weathered - not a relatively short, sharp implosion and rebound but a structural grind down do a lower level of economic activity. Our policy makers are sabotaging the spending that keeps the economy chugging along, realizing they cannot control whether the budget is in surplus or deficit but they can do the next best thing (from their monumentally stupid point of view) - they can keep the discretionary component of the deficit lower. Of course, this is bleeding growth from the economy - which has a tendency to increase deficits as tax receipts automatically fall and welfare expenditure automatically rises but hey, government is all about trying to run ever smaller deficits and ultimately balanced and surplus budgets, right?

The fix for this does not involve returning to commodity money and attempting to run government as a business - it involves the government at a minimum allowing the automatic deficit to be what it will be and then moving to fill the spending gap.

Do you see the pointlessness of placing primacy on an arbitrary budget figure instead of focussing on the well-being of the Australian people at large?
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 19 May 2017, 06:27

ABS data getting less and less reliable as the relentless and mindless trend to gut our primary statistics agency marches on, in the name of "saving" a few bucks. The ongoing cuts to ABS jobs and resources seem to be compromising their ability to collect and compile important data with a high degree of accuracy - the kind of data that the policy makers who ordered the cuts need in order to make important policy decisions.

Yesterday we saw another labour force data release that was at odds with all observable on the ground reality. What appeared to be the second month running of decent labour force outcomes is being increasingly called into question. The official unemployment rate decreased by 0.2 pp to 5.7% while the participation rate remained steady. Last month saw a large surge in full-time employment growth - while total hours worked increased at a much lower rate. This month, hours worked actually fell significantly while employment increased.

By Gareth Aird, Senior Economist at CBA

Key Points:

*Employment rose by a solid 37.4k in April following a massive lift of 60.0k in March.
*The unemployment rate dropped by 0.2ppts to 5.7% and the participation rate held firm at 64.8%.
*Hours worked fell in April and the data looks at odds with the reported gains in employment over the past two months.

Once again the ABS has published an employment report that has left us scratching our heads. Employment is reported to have lifted by a very strong 37.4k in April (consensus +5k) after increasing by a massive 60.0k in March. To put these numbers in perspective, it’s the equivalent of a 1.2 million increase in US non-farm payrolls over two months! To further add to our concerns over the data, total hours worked is reported to have fallen by 0.3% in April and is down by 0.1% over the past two months despite employment having risen by 97.4k.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/05/abs-data-quality-thrust-back-spotlight/

While they are even more volatile, some of the state based data is even more difficult to reconcile...

The unemployment rate fell by 0.3ppts in NSW to 4.7% and by 0.6ppts to 5.9% in WA.


NSW is perhaps believable to an extent - but stats showing that Western Australia which is in a resources bust is experiencing boomtime employment growth is clearly at odds with reality.

Bilbo.....

Employment increased by 37,400 (0.9 per cent) – full-time employment decreased 11,600 and part-time employment increased 49,000.

In seasonally-adjusted terms, 58 per cent of the net jobs created in Australia in the last 12 months have been part-time.

The zig-zag pattern that we have observed over the last 36 months or so – where the employment estimates have been switching back and forth regularly between negative employment growth and positive growth with the occasional spikes – continues.

The positive spike in March is, however, somewhat larger than similar spikes in the last 8 or 9 months. It is possible we will see a revision in the data next month given this unusually strong result.

The following graph shows the month by month growth in full-time (blue columns), part-time (grey columns) and total employment (green line) for the 24 months to April 2017 using seasonally adjusted data.

It gives you a good impression of just how flat employment growth has been over the last 2 years. You can also see the dominance of part-time employment growth over the same period, especially in the last year or so.

It also suggests that last month’s spike was not the start of a new surge in employment growth.

Image
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Dax » 19 May 2017, 10:35

Lefty wrote:
Do you see the pointlessness of placing primacy on an arbitrary budget figure instead of focussing on the well-being of the Australian people at large?


What I see is someone who has no knowledge or experienced in business or government, yet thinks they have discovered something that no one else has. However many in successful long term business have seen this coming for many decades and prepared themselves and their businesses for the number of probable eventualities facing society.

The well being of the Australian people can only be attained with a proper economic approach to the future, this can't be attained through your airy fairy approach, because no matter what you try to make out, the approach they currently use is the one you are advocating and not a rational logical economic approach based on reality, bit delusion.

If you knew anything of worth economically, you'd understand what I'm saying, but as you don't have a clue, all you have is the airy fairy deluded crap you've read. Life may look like to operates on disneyland principles, but the facts are, the delusion you're chasing, is purely disneyland principles, so con the enslaved urban clones into false sense of security. That makes it easy for them to be ripped off every day of their lives and be none the wiser. It's a good joke of you can see it, but clones are to blinded by their own delusionary ego's to notice anything but the mirror inside their heads.

The economic collapse which has already started, will bring down current society and introduce complete mayhem, along with unbelievable violence and destruction. This is the end of the ideological era and all ideological clones who rely upon fantasy and delusion will be relegated to the past, where they belong.

Supporting what you contend, is a typical ideological fantasy and can't work in any way, as is being proven right before your eyes. Yet you like other ideologues, you insist it will work and all you have to back it up is, deluded fantasy and empty hope you will be right. The facts are the model you advocate, is the current model and miserably failing in every way.

When the collapse works its way into public view, it will be to late for clones to do anything but suffer the outcomes. When all they can think of is me me me and I want it now and bugger the future, there is no hope for them but cannon fodder for the collapse.

Those like myself who have seen this coming for many decades, are well prepared personally and business wise. People have to eat, sleep and be entertained, no matter what the conditions are. Any debt at all, will bring down business and enslave clones. There will be millions thrown out of their homes and businesses by banks struggling to cope with the collapse of their unsustainable business models and they will also go down rapidly, even when supported by governments. Because the governments economic policies will collapse completely.

Those businesses and people who have no debt, not even a small credit card debt, will have a real chance of getting through and surviving into a new economic and social era, that will exclude debt. There will be no governments as we know them, but more than likely people run governments, which will be online and fully controlled by the people left, not useless ideological elites.

Enjoy your fantasy beliefs and lifestyle, it's almost over. If you can't see the facts ans continue to demand fantasy will overcome illusion, to bad. There are enough on this planet who will get through because of their preparedness and capacity to survive in all ways, without societies input. Those people represent less than 001% of the human population and are not ideological in any way, but realists living in reality and not deluded ideological fantasy.

Every ideology including economic rationalisation and profit growth, is in a state of violent collapse, maybe your mythical god of war god will come rescue you, problem is mythical gods of war only create war and dissent, so the only outcome for religion, is war and more war. Or maybe someone will pull an economic rabbit out of their illusionary hat, won't make a bit of difference as evolution is unstoppable and unrelenting and the ideological era is way past its use by date. Enjoy the last days, they may be long they may be short, but they will be over by 2031. That's not a pipe dream, but based on pure economic and sociological fact.
Dax
puppy
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 12 Apr 2017, 12:15
spamone: Animal

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 19 May 2017, 13:26

Dax, it was hard to not stop reading after the first two paragraphs. A rant running into the hundreds of words, long on end-of-days rhetoric and slights but short on any attempt to actually prove your argument. I give you demonstratable facts and you respond with paragraphs devoid of the same.

If you're as smart as you think you are, you will accept that your understanding of the modern economy and monetary system is innacurate and embark on a quest for the actual facts, just like I did. I was a bit taken aback when I discovered that what I thought I knew, what I thought was just common sense was simply not how things actually are. I accepted that I had been wrong and made the undertaking to become educated in the facts. You on the other hand, are still struggling to accept that you have been misunderstanding the economy. Perhaps you have more to lose than I did by facing up to the truth - that some Wally the worker in regional QLD understands the basics of how the economy actually functions while a self-made businessman does not. You didn't seriously believe that one's station in life is a yardstick by which to measure intellect did you?

So I have shown you the facts and can show you more - demonstrate to me where the facts are wrong.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 20 May 2017, 07:59

Having a bit more time this morning, I just read that rant again - it reads like a great plotline for a movie. Never mind that the storyline has been done countless times before, I think it's got Hollywood potential. People never get tired of Apocalypse-type films, though to make it a bit more hip and modern you should probably chuck in an army of ravenous, flesh-eating zombies.

So you've spent decades preparing for the inevitable collapse of society and are unwilling to entertain the facts that demonstrate how we could avoid such a thing. Really, that shouldn't be a barrier to understanding - just make that crucial first step of accepting the facts, then you can still believe anything you like regarding outcomes. You could say "I understand that government could prevent this socio-economic grind down if it wanted to (acceptance of the actual facts) but they will probably choose not to (unknown but a possibility)"

Seriously Dax, I often entertain notions of the kind of collapse you refer to - but I understand that any such outcome would arise largely as a voluntary choice by our policy making elites (who would themselves be largely unaffected), just as I understand that involuntary unemployment/underemployment is not inevitable under the current system but results from consciously made choices to use a certain portion of human beings at the bottom of the heap as sacrificial lambs to cushion against inflation - that's not a conspiracy theory, it's an outrageous fact. Never mind that galloping inflation resulting from wage-price spirals (which in turn were the result of external energy shocks) is a demon of yesteryear.

You have not directly responded to any of the facts I have shown you so I will ask again:

*I have demonstrated that the recession of the 90's was even worse by some of the most important measures than the 80's recession, with households being impacted by higher interest rates and higher unemployment in the wake - do you dispute that this is a fact? If so, why? I will accept "they were both about as bad as each other" since all things considered, that could probably be argued to be consistent with the facts.

*I have demonstrated that the Australian government did not run mostly surplus budgets in the pre-Fraser years and that surpluses that did occur tended to be very small, few and far between and short-lived and that the prosperous era you grew up in was one defined by Keynesian economic management - do you dispute that this is a fact? If so, demonstrate where the official records are wrong.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 23 May 2017, 13:04

While I submitted a graph of unemployment rates of the period in question, the link for the interest rate one appears broken. So here they are, compiled by Macrobusiness from RBA data.

Image

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/05/another-very-foolish-take-on-housing-affordability/

I cannot stress enough how important it is to pursue the facts - even if we find the facts distasteful or contrary to what we thought we knew.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 24 May 2017, 06:39

Greg Jericho....

[url=Australians aren't being paid for their productivity. Get set for an industrial relations war]https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2017/may/23/australians-arent-being-paid-for-their-productivity-get-set-for-an-industrial-relations-war[/url]

I'm sceptical we'll see any "industrial relations war" any time soon, Australians are far more likely to just roll over and take it imo. People could be motivated to organize against Workchoices but Workchoices was a great big in-your-face monster, this is more subtle. It's a symptom of - and also feeds in a feedback loop - the steady economic grind-down we have been witnessing.

The comments section contains this particularly brainless comment.....

I read a lot of comments that a based on a time warp. It's as if you all think its the 60's and the Lucky Country is going gung ho. But its 2017 and very few businesses are in any great shape. Aussies get paid really well vis a vis the World standard and that is why Factories including all auto manufacturing are abandoning Australia. But all I hear is pay us more. How can a business do this in the current climate ? Jobs are moving to China cause its cheaper, some Aussie firms like to stay home and employ Aussies and its an never ending shit fight.
How about some of you man up, open a business and put your money where your mouth is ? Think of a great idea, go to the bank, borrow lots of money, invested in your idea and try to produce a quality item priced for the Global Economy we are stuck with. Any takers ?
It is diabolical out there, almost impossible to do business in this country, we are becoming Argentina at an alarming rate.
How about The Guardian actually write an article by an economists and not a delusional Socialist that reviews the real state of Australia's Economy and what we need to do to stop us becoming a Banana Republic.


Like many others, this person simply does not grasp the overall bigger picture. A few posts down was a person who gets it.......

One of the management people, with a slightly gleeful tone in his voice said to me, “How are you going to collect union dues from all these machines?” And I replied, “You know, that is not what’s bothering me. I’m troubled by the problem of how to sell automobiles to these machines."


This has always been the conundrum of capitalism - one businesses employees which are a (necessary) cost are the next businesses customers and their wages are the next businesses income. When capitalists are broadly successful at reducing employee renumeration across the board, the increase in profitability is typically fleeting, they have effectively shot themselves in the foot.
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby Lefty » 26 May 2017, 12:54

Philip Davies - head of Infrastructure Australia - demonstrates just how entrenched the neo-liberal poison is in our public institutions and think-tanks. They seem utterly immune to the facts and continue to drive the same abysmally-failed privatization agenda that has failed to deliver lower costs and more efficient services more times than can be counted over the past few decades and has usually resulted in the opposite.

From Macrobusiness (link seems encrypted).....

Handing operation of all of Australia’s public bus and rail systems over to the private sector could save state governments as much as $15.5 billion by 2040, giving them funds to reinvest back into public transport, a new report from Infrastructure Australia says.

Philip Davies, Infrastructure Australia’s chief executive, said Australia’s transport systems needed to continue expanding to keep up with population growth and governments could raise money for new transport services by franchising existing ones.

Demand for public transport is expected to rise 48 per cent in Sydney by 2031 and almost double in Melbourne and Perth.

Many bus services around the country are already operated by private companies, with the NSW government announcing last week it was putting another Sydney bus service up for private tender.

New public transport systems under construction, such as Sydney’s Metro and its CBD and south-east light network, are being franchised, which involves giving private companies control over the operation and maintenance while the government maintains ownership of the infrastructure.

Private operators may reduce costs by improving productivity with performance incentives and better asset management, as well as cutting jobs…

Rail networks, with the exception of Victoria which franchised its systems in 1999, are still in public hands. NSW could save almost $9 billion by franchising its rail networks and the remainder of its bus systems, while Queensland could save $3.3 billion and Victoria $1 billion, the report says.





How many times can the same strategy deliver the opposite of what is promised and still be regarded as the only way to go? As long as the people just keep rolling over and taking it I guess.......
User avatar
Lefty
Bengal Tiger
 
Posts: 16395
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 10:34

Re: Australian economy

Postby HBS Guy » 26 May 2017, 18:23

Time to man the barricades!
Abbott & Co are going to cause the mother and father of all recessions—be prepared!
User avatar
HBS Guy
Tractors to Australia
 
Posts: 42696
Joined: 27 Oct 2009, 15:37

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: johnsmith and 2 guests