Australian unemployment rate *falls*
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
Shame on them for wanting to stay out of debt as much as possible and operate on what they actually have.
It is not a moral issue. It is a question of economic cause and effect. The problem is known as the "paradox of thrift". As you pointed out in an earlier thread, one person's spending funds another person's income. If people cut back their spending and their savings are not taken up and spent by someone else --- be it other consumers or firms or the government --- then overall spending drops, which means that incomes drop and the attempt of people to improve their economic position fails.
Intel 4004 wrote:
So you are saying if people don't want to get in debt the government should force them into debt? If people want to cut back and save money, the government should not take it and spend it for them.
Yes. You need to understand the difference between individual and collective rationality. Think about people in a grandstand watching a football match. If one person stands up, he gets a better view because his position is improved relative to the other spectators. Thus standing up is individually rational in terms of getting a better view. If all people stand up, by contrast, then their relative positions don't change so they all get essentially the same view as when all are seated. Thus it is not collectively rational. Saving are both individually and collectively rational if those savings are mobilised for investment, which is what happens most of the time. If, however, savings are not going to be mobilised for investment, then they are individually rational but not collectively rational. They are collectively irrational and economically destructive. Just by the way, when people save and the money is borrowed and invested by a private firm, aggregate indebtedness is not reduced. Rather, the debt of consumers falls and the debt of firms goes up by an equal amount. Since the firms are owned by someone, indirectly the owners' debt goes up so, overall, there is no net change in household indebtedness. In short, we owe money to each other. When the government borrows from households, the same thing happens. The household debt goes down, the government debt goes up and, since the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the government debt, there is no net change in household indebtedness. (The foregoing ignores issues of foreign debt for the s
Well we are in completely different mindsets, in my view the government should stay out of things as much as possible. The government certainly should NOT try to short circuit the economy like its some kind of favor to us.
-
Oakman wrote:
In the not-so-long-run inflation can cause far more unemployment than it cures.
Not a problem for a long time and need not be a problem at all with sensible policy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1[^]
Oakman wrote:
Exactly what the government is hoping for: It inflates the money supply, wages go up in an attempt to catch up, enabbling the government to take a larger share of their earnings thanks to a graduated tax while paying off the debt it incurred at 50 cents on the dollar, because thats how much the money is now worth.
Incomes will rise if and when the economy recovers, even with no inflation. It is true that inflation is one way to reduce the national debt and it is conceivable that the government might use that as a deliberate strategy. Such a strategy has costs, however, both economic and political.
John Carson
You need a wake up call. Your admiration of the government's actions regarding the economy shows how much of the big picture you are missing. You DO need to think about the morality of their actions, you DO have to think about the long term consequences, the economy is NOT some computer program that you can constantly make huge internal modifications as if it is some simulation. The Austrian School of Economics is the best way to go, fuck that Keystonian shiut to hell.
-
Australia has been throwing money at the problem and it seems to be working in moderating the recession. I am sure the Australian economy will get worse before the global recession is over because the problems in the rest of the world are dragging us down, but we are doing pretty well. If only other countries were as aggressive with their stimulus policies, the global recovery would be much quicker. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/07/2563305.htm[^]
John Carson
Its not going to work, John. If government can spend a society into prosperity, than none of us need work again, so why worry about unemployment at all?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Intel 4004 wrote:
Shame on them for wanting to stay out of debt as much as possible and operate on what they actually have.
It is not a moral issue. It is a question of economic cause and effect. The problem is known as the "paradox of thrift". As you pointed out in an earlier thread, one person's spending funds another person's income. If people cut back their spending and their savings are not taken up and spent by someone else --- be it other consumers or firms or the government --- then overall spending drops, which means that incomes drop and the attempt of people to improve their economic position fails.
Intel 4004 wrote:
So you are saying if people don't want to get in debt the government should force them into debt? If people want to cut back and save money, the government should not take it and spend it for them.
Yes. You need to understand the difference between individual and collective rationality. Think about people in a grandstand watching a football match. If one person stands up, he gets a better view because his position is improved relative to the other spectators. Thus standing up is individually rational in terms of getting a better view. If all people stand up, by contrast, then their relative positions don't change so they all get essentially the same view as when all are seated. Thus it is not collectively rational. Saving are both individually and collectively rational if those savings are mobilised for investment, which is what happens most of the time. If, however, savings are not going to be mobilised for investment, then they are individually rational but not collectively rational. They are collectively irrational and economically destructive. Just by the way, when people save and the money is borrowed and invested by a private firm, aggregate indebtedness is not reduced. Rather, the debt of consumers falls and the debt of firms goes up by an equal amount. Since the firms are owned by someone, indirectly the owners' debt goes up so, overall, there is no net change in household indebtedness. In short, we owe money to each other. When the government borrows from households, the same thing happens. The household debt goes down, the government debt goes up and, since the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the government debt, there is no net change in household indebtedness. (The foregoing ignores issues of foreign debt for the s
John Carson wrote:
Ultimately, what matters is that those borrowing are in a position to repay
And what are the odds, do you think, that the U.S. will be able to meet its obligations, without forcing inflation to new, even higher rates, for the next 25 years? Remember that the CBO's economists, having taken into account a recovery and increased wages, still predicts that we start to go belly-up in four years.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Ultimately, what matters is that those borrowing are in a position to repay
And what are the odds, do you think, that the U.S. will be able to meet its obligations, without forcing inflation to new, even higher rates, for the next 25 years? Remember that the CBO's economists, having taken into account a recovery and increased wages, still predicts that we start to go belly-up in four years.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
And what are the odds, do you think, that the U.S. will be able to meet its obligations, without forcing inflation to new, even higher rates, for the next 25 years?
absolutely impossible. like yourself, I experinced the inflation and high interest rate of the early 80's (via a $200k mortgage at a 12% variable interest rate) and we're headed to the same place like a runaway locomotive. this time I have (for me) a shit load of cash in the bank that I rfefuse to spend now on the hopes that it'll provide my wife and I a thick burger as we leave the city.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
And what are the odds, do you think, that the U.S. will be able to meet its obligations, without forcing inflation to new, even higher rates, for the next 25 years?
absolutely impossible. like yourself, I experinced the inflation and high interest rate of the early 80's (via a $200k mortgage at a 12% variable interest rate) and we're headed to the same place like a runaway locomotive. this time I have (for me) a shit load of cash in the bank that I rfefuse to spend now on the hopes that it'll provide my wife and I a thick burger as we leave the city.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I experinced the inflation and high interest rate of the early 80's
Nothing seems quite as universal as "Those who will not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it." Nixon instituted a number of short-term fixes, like leaving the gold standard and then was forced to institute wage and price controls to fight the inflation he created and that continued non-stop for over ten years. I do expect to see, probably just after the 2010 elections, wage and price controls instituted on others besides the financial industry.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
sh*t load of cash
So far, so good, of course. But the question is are you good enough to spot the day before the banks are closed and everyone realises that money is toilet paper? I don't think I am, which is why I worship at the altar of the great god Auric.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I experinced the inflation and high interest rate of the early 80's
Nothing seems quite as universal as "Those who will not learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it." Nixon instituted a number of short-term fixes, like leaving the gold standard and then was forced to institute wage and price controls to fight the inflation he created and that continued non-stop for over ten years. I do expect to see, probably just after the 2010 elections, wage and price controls instituted on others besides the financial industry.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
sh*t load of cash
So far, so good, of course. But the question is are you good enough to spot the day before the banks are closed and everyone realises that money is toilet paper? I don't think I am, which is why I worship at the altar of the great god Auric.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Auric
as represented by by actual possession or representive paper with someone else holding or stock in a mining corporation?
Oakman wrote:
But the question is are you good enough to spot the day before the banks are closed
at this point, two different banks and by next week split between 3. each of the 3 in a differen finanancial segment (bank largley CDs, brokerage for money market and savings, bank as a subsidary of a healthy insurance company). If the dollar itself completely tanks, I'll be screwed but I think what we'll see is inflation a bit worse than the early 80s.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
Auric
as represented by by actual possession or representive paper with someone else holding or stock in a mining corporation?
Oakman wrote:
But the question is are you good enough to spot the day before the banks are closed
at this point, two different banks and by next week split between 3. each of the 3 in a differen finanancial segment (bank largley CDs, brokerage for money market and savings, bank as a subsidary of a healthy insurance company). If the dollar itself completely tanks, I'll be screwed but I think what we'll see is inflation a bit worse than the early 80s.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
as represented by by actual possession or representive paper with someone else holding or stock in a mining corporation?
Think of Scrooge McDuck diving off the board into his gold-pool. Okay, it's a lovely image and I thought I'd share it with you. But after a ruinous divorce 8 years ago, there's no way I could match him. But yes, actual possession. Every so often I calculate how many loaves of bread I can trade for gold using that day's price fixings. I know there's no guarantee that gold will maintain its value vis-a-vis bread after a full-scaled panic/crash, but it sure as shite has a better chance than monopoly money - and keeping the same value in small arms and ammo around the house would probably get me a visit from the ATF boyo's. Too bad, I've got a spare room that would look so nice with an M50 mounted in the window. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Its not going to work, John. If government can spend a society into prosperity, than none of us need work again, so why worry about unemployment at all?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its not going to work, John. If government can spend a society into prosperity, than none of us need work again, so why worry about unemployment at all?
That is analogous to saying that taking penicillin for an infection isn't going to work: if doctors' medicine could make us healthy, none of us need eat, drink or exercise.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Not a problem for a long time and need not be a problem at all with sensible policy
Seems to me that we got into this mess with politicians and economists saying "not a problem for a long time." I am quite pessimistic that any democratically elected government presently in power will pursue a sensible policy. It is entirely possible that China, and Russia will - and the rest of us will pay the butcher's bill.
John Carson wrote:
Incomes will rise if and when the economy recovers, even with no inflation
There has been what once would have been called runaway inflation in this country since the fall of Bretton Woods. (The consumer price index in this country doubled in between 1800 and 1970. It doubled again in only 12 years. It is now six times higher than it was in 1970. Maybe Australia's figures are different? Average real income in the US is lower than it was ten years ago. so wages aren't even keeping up any more.)
John Carson wrote:
Such a strategy has costs, however, both economic and political
I hope they taught that to the folks at Harvard.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Seems to me that we got into this mess with politicians and economists saying "not a problem for a long time."
The real point is that the problem is the opposite. You don't pursue anti-obesity policies when dealing with famine victims. Maybe obesity will eventually be a problem for famine victims, but that is an issue to be dealt with at a later time.
Oakman wrote:
I am quite pessimistic that any democratically elected government presently in power will pursue a sensible policy.
One hopes to see a growth of reason in public affairs and less populism. It is not impossible. Intelligence goes in and out of fashion.
Oakman wrote:
There has been what once would have been called runaway inflation in this country since the fall of Bretton Woods. (The consumer price index in this country doubled in between 1800 and 1970. It doubled again in only 12 years. It is now six times higher than it was in 1970. Maybe Australia's figures are different? Average real income in the US is lower than it was ten years ago. so wages aren't even keeping up any more.)
Australia's inflation experience has been similar, except that real wages have steadily risen. An inflation rate of 2-3 percent a year isn't a problem. In fact, Australia's equivalent of the Federal Reserve has an explicit target of keeping inflation in that range.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Ultimately, what matters is that those borrowing are in a position to repay
And what are the odds, do you think, that the U.S. will be able to meet its obligations, without forcing inflation to new, even higher rates, for the next 25 years? Remember that the CBO's economists, having taken into account a recovery and increased wages, still predicts that we start to go belly-up in four years.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
And what are the odds, do you think, that the U.S. will be able to meet its obligations, without forcing inflation to new, even higher rates, for the next 25 years?
Hard to say. That depends heavily on the speed of recovery. It also depends on the politics --- what political will exists to tackle the deficit once the economy does recover. Note that inflation is only effective in reducing debt if unanticipated. If, at the time of making a loan, lenders anticipate high inflation, then interest rates are higher to compensate for this. To the extent that government debt is short-term, debt needs to be regularly re-issued, and it will have to be re-issued at higher interest rates if there is inflation.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Seems to me that we got into this mess with politicians and economists saying "not a problem for a long time."
The real point is that the problem is the opposite. You don't pursue anti-obesity policies when dealing with famine victims. Maybe obesity will eventually be a problem for famine victims, but that is an issue to be dealt with at a later time.
Oakman wrote:
I am quite pessimistic that any democratically elected government presently in power will pursue a sensible policy.
One hopes to see a growth of reason in public affairs and less populism. It is not impossible. Intelligence goes in and out of fashion.
Oakman wrote:
There has been what once would have been called runaway inflation in this country since the fall of Bretton Woods. (The consumer price index in this country doubled in between 1800 and 1970. It doubled again in only 12 years. It is now six times higher than it was in 1970. Maybe Australia's figures are different? Average real income in the US is lower than it was ten years ago. so wages aren't even keeping up any more.)
Australia's inflation experience has been similar, except that real wages have steadily risen. An inflation rate of 2-3 percent a year isn't a problem. In fact, Australia's equivalent of the Federal Reserve has an explicit target of keeping inflation in that range.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You don't pursue anti-obesity policies when dealing with famine victims
Nor do you feed them large doses of carcinogens simply because they also contain lots of glucose. (I suggest we stay away from too many metaphors, while they occasionally provide insite, they too often add a layer of obsfucation - as I think I may have just proved.)
John Carson wrote:
One hopes to see a growth of reason in public affairs and less populism. It is not impossible. Intelligence goes in and out of fashion.
Well the race is not always to the swift, nor the votes to the liar. But that's the way to bet. ,
John Carson wrote:
In fact, Australia's equivalent of the Federal Reserve has an explicit target of keeping inflation in that range.
Which begs the question: do they pump it up if it falls below their target? I think a case can be made for the Fed doing exactly that. It is worthy of note that, from 1800 to 1913, when the fed was created, the CPI fluctuated but stayed pretty much the same over time. Inflation (even after the Civil War) was not a problem - until the Feds was created. The CPI immediately took off, and with few exceptions has never gone any which way but up - on a curve that almost straightlined in the 70's and early 80's and which has since eased at bit - though projections from here on out show it skyrocketing again. It may be that the difference between Oz and the US right now is the previous forty years. No president or congress has shown any real restraint (Clinton, a little, but he brought the deficit down, he never paid off a nickle of the public debt) in increasing the amount of borrowing we have done. Even if neoKeynesians are totally correct, there must come a point where a bankrupt cannot save himself by borrowing. It may be that the US has reached that point. Unfortunately, if we go down, we'll take the world economy with us.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its not going to work, John. If government can spend a society into prosperity, than none of us need work again, so why worry about unemployment at all?
That is analogous to saying that taking penicillin for an infection isn't going to work: if doctors' medicine could make us healthy, none of us need eat, drink or exercise.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
That is analogous to saying that taking penicillin for an infection isn't going to work: if doctors' medicine could make us healthy, none of us need eat, drink or exercise.
No, actually, that would be completely different. If government spending improves economic conditions, it would improve them everywhere, all the time. If it does not, it will not improve them under any conditions, ever.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
That is analogous to saying that taking penicillin for an infection isn't going to work: if doctors' medicine could make us healthy, none of us need eat, drink or exercise.
No, actually, that would be completely different. If government spending improves economic conditions, it would improve them everywhere, all the time. If it does not, it will not improve them under any conditions, ever.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If government spending improves economic conditions, it would improve them everywhere, all the time.
How do you prove it hasn't? The claim that we would be much worse off if we hadn't spent all that money is not easier to disprove than the claim that we are safer from attack because of the war in Iraq.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
You don't pursue anti-obesity policies when dealing with famine victims
Nor do you feed them large doses of carcinogens simply because they also contain lots of glucose. (I suggest we stay away from too many metaphors, while they occasionally provide insite, they too often add a layer of obsfucation - as I think I may have just proved.)
John Carson wrote:
One hopes to see a growth of reason in public affairs and less populism. It is not impossible. Intelligence goes in and out of fashion.
Well the race is not always to the swift, nor the votes to the liar. But that's the way to bet. ,
John Carson wrote:
In fact, Australia's equivalent of the Federal Reserve has an explicit target of keeping inflation in that range.
Which begs the question: do they pump it up if it falls below their target? I think a case can be made for the Fed doing exactly that. It is worthy of note that, from 1800 to 1913, when the fed was created, the CPI fluctuated but stayed pretty much the same over time. Inflation (even after the Civil War) was not a problem - until the Feds was created. The CPI immediately took off, and with few exceptions has never gone any which way but up - on a curve that almost straightlined in the 70's and early 80's and which has since eased at bit - though projections from here on out show it skyrocketing again. It may be that the difference between Oz and the US right now is the previous forty years. No president or congress has shown any real restraint (Clinton, a little, but he brought the deficit down, he never paid off a nickle of the public debt) in increasing the amount of borrowing we have done. Even if neoKeynesians are totally correct, there must come a point where a bankrupt cannot save himself by borrowing. It may be that the US has reached that point. Unfortunately, if we go down, we'll take the world economy with us.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Which begs the question: do they pump it up if it falls below their target?
Yes they do.
Oakman wrote:
It may be that the difference between Oz and the US right now is the previous forty years. No president or congress has shown any real restraint (Clinton, a little, but he brought the deficit down, he never paid off a nickle of the public debt) in increasing the amount of borrowing we have done. Even if neoKeynesians are totally correct, there must come a point where a bankrupt cannot save himself by borrowing. It may be that the US has reached that point. Unfortunately, if we go down, we'll take the world economy with us.
At the start of the downturn, Australia's net national debt was roughly zero (there were still people with government bonds, but the government held a similar amount of money in a privately issued financial assets). http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/fbo/html/02_part_1-06.htm[^] Australia's long run of budget surpluses wasn't entirely a matter of great restraint; Australia's finances have benefited greatly from a mining boom. However, Australia's conservatives never bought into the voodoo economics that cutting taxes increases revenue. Having no net national debt has certainly given Australia a lot more freedom to move. To the extent that the US is up a creek without a paddle, you can largely thank the reckless fiscal policies of the Republicans starting with Reagan.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
That is analogous to saying that taking penicillin for an infection isn't going to work: if doctors' medicine could make us healthy, none of us need eat, drink or exercise.
No, actually, that would be completely different. If government spending improves economic conditions, it would improve them everywhere, all the time. If it does not, it will not improve them under any conditions, ever.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If government spending improves economic conditions, it would improve them everywhere, all the time.
There is a theorem on this? Please show the proof. Some government spending is always desirable (on roads, for example), but it doesn't follow that it is a case of "the more the better". Food is desirable, but you can have too much of it. When you are under-nourished, a temporary excess is desirable. When you are over-weight, a temporary shortfall is desirable. This is an economic situation in which a temporary excess of government spending is desirable in order to overcome a lack of demand --- just as Roosevelt proved in the Depression.
John Carson
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
as represented by by actual possession or representive paper with someone else holding or stock in a mining corporation?
Think of Scrooge McDuck diving off the board into his gold-pool. Okay, it's a lovely image and I thought I'd share it with you. But after a ruinous divorce 8 years ago, there's no way I could match him. But yes, actual possession. Every so often I calculate how many loaves of bread I can trade for gold using that day's price fixings. I know there's no guarantee that gold will maintain its value vis-a-vis bread after a full-scaled panic/crash, but it sure as shite has a better chance than monopoly money - and keeping the same value in small arms and ammo around the house would probably get me a visit from the ATF boyo's. Too bad, I've got a spare room that would look so nice with an M50 mounted in the window. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
no guarantee that gold will maintain its value vis-a-vis bread after a full-scaled panic/crash, but it sure as shite has a better chance than monopoly money
Interesting. I've done something similar. Over a twenty year period I made it a practice to buy my wife a piece of jewelry that had some but not an excessive value. A necklace or ring for example with one, maybe several small stones plus a gold setting. I'd give it to her for Christmas or some special occasion and tell her it was for the revolution. I meant it as I figured each small stone or sliver of gold would get us a tank of gas, some food or maybe a handful of rounds. bottom line, a bit of prudence and foresight always makes sense.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
Which begs the question: do they pump it up if it falls below their target?
Yes they do.
Oakman wrote:
It may be that the difference between Oz and the US right now is the previous forty years. No president or congress has shown any real restraint (Clinton, a little, but he brought the deficit down, he never paid off a nickle of the public debt) in increasing the amount of borrowing we have done. Even if neoKeynesians are totally correct, there must come a point where a bankrupt cannot save himself by borrowing. It may be that the US has reached that point. Unfortunately, if we go down, we'll take the world economy with us.
At the start of the downturn, Australia's net national debt was roughly zero (there were still people with government bonds, but the government held a similar amount of money in a privately issued financial assets). http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/fbo/html/02_part_1-06.htm[^] Australia's long run of budget surpluses wasn't entirely a matter of great restraint; Australia's finances have benefited greatly from a mining boom. However, Australia's conservatives never bought into the voodoo economics that cutting taxes increases revenue. Having no net national debt has certainly given Australia a lot more freedom to move. To the extent that the US is up a creek without a paddle, you can largely thank the reckless fiscal policies of the Republicans starting with Reagan.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
you can largely thank the reckless fiscal policies of the Republicans
I know it's important to you to take sides, but I will thank all of the folks in Washington who had a hand in spending what we didn't have certainly including Reagan but also Tip O'Neil who passed everyone of Reagan's budgets. However, worrying about whodunit only provides a little satisfaction. I see no way out of the quandary now, and I am appalled, less for myself than for my kids and yours.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
you can largely thank the reckless fiscal policies of the Republicans
I know it's important to you to take sides, but I will thank all of the folks in Washington who had a hand in spending what we didn't have certainly including Reagan but also Tip O'Neil who passed everyone of Reagan's budgets. However, worrying about whodunit only provides a little satisfaction. I see no way out of the quandary now, and I am appalled, less for myself than for my kids and yours.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I know it's important to you to take sides, but I will thank all of the folks in Washington who had a hand in spending what we didn't have certainly including Reagan but also Tip O'Neil who passed everyone of Reagan's budgets.
The Democrats have a very poor record as enablers of the Republicans' bad initiatives.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
I know it's important to you to take sides, but I will thank all of the folks in Washington who had a hand in spending what we didn't have certainly including Reagan but also Tip O'Neil who passed everyone of Reagan's budgets.
The Democrats have a very poor record as enablers of the Republicans' bad initiatives.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The Democrats have a very poor record as enablers of the Republicans' bad initiatives.
ROFL. Thank you, that's made my evening.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin