Australian unemployment rate *falls*
-
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
-
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
John Carson wrote:
If only other countries were as aggressive with their stimulus policies, the global recovery would be much quicker.
You have to be joking right? Lets all devalue our currencies and borrow from each other and just give all that money away! Whats going to happen when that money looses its velocity and the new monies that were created out of thin air settle in? Its an overheated machine fueled with inflation.
-
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
I still think our stimulus policy was a stupid mistake. How long are we going to be paying off our Rudd money, most of which was surely passed to the Chinese through flat screen TVs and blu ray players ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
I still think our stimulus policy was a stupid mistake. How long are we going to be paying off our Rudd money, most of which was surely passed to the Chinese through flat screen TVs and blu ray players ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
still think our stimulus policy was a stupid mistake.
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
Christian Graus wrote:
How long are we going to be paying off our Rudd money, most of which was surely passed to the Chinese through flat screen TVs and blu ray players?
Mainly we will be just paying it off to ourselves. People want to save too much relative to what people want to borrow and spend, so the government is borrowing and spending --- as it should. Later, when incomes rise (automatically increasing taxation revenue) and people want to spend more, the government will cut its spending and pay back the money it has borrowed --- as it should. As for the Chinese: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3022494/Re-US-beats-UK-and-Germany-by-a-mile-modified.aspx[^]
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
still think our stimulus policy was a stupid mistake.
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
Christian Graus wrote:
How long are we going to be paying off our Rudd money, most of which was surely passed to the Chinese through flat screen TVs and blu ray players?
Mainly we will be just paying it off to ourselves. People want to save too much relative to what people want to borrow and spend, so the government is borrowing and spending --- as it should. Later, when incomes rise (automatically increasing taxation revenue) and people want to spend more, the government will cut its spending and pay back the money it has borrowed --- as it should. As for the Chinese: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3022494/Re-US-beats-UK-and-Germany-by-a-mile-modified.aspx[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
People want to save too much relative to what people want to borrow and spend, so the government is borrowing and spending --- as it should.
I have to say John I appreciate your very analytical view of this. I imagine a lot of people reading this might just see the opinion you espouse and not realize that your thinking is based on a certain framework and rather than debate the merits of the framework would rather debate you :)
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
modified on Thursday, May 7, 2009 12:25 AM
-
Christian Graus wrote:
still think our stimulus policy was a stupid mistake.
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
Christian Graus wrote:
How long are we going to be paying off our Rudd money, most of which was surely passed to the Chinese through flat screen TVs and blu ray players?
Mainly we will be just paying it off to ourselves. People want to save too much relative to what people want to borrow and spend, so the government is borrowing and spending --- as it should. Later, when incomes rise (automatically increasing taxation revenue) and people want to spend more, the government will cut its spending and pay back the money it has borrowed --- as it should. As for the Chinese: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3022494/Re-US-beats-UK-and-Germany-by-a-mile-modified.aspx[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
People want to save too much relative to what people want to borrow and spend
Shame on them for wanting to stay out of debt as much as possible and operate on what they actually have.
John Carson wrote:
so the government is borrowing and spending --- as it should
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.
John Carson wrote:
Later, when incomes rise
Due to inflation, the numbers will be higher, its value will not. Centrally planned economies are doomed to fail.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
still think our stimulus policy was a stupid mistake.
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
Christian Graus wrote:
How long are we going to be paying off our Rudd money, most of which was surely passed to the Chinese through flat screen TVs and blu ray players?
Mainly we will be just paying it off to ourselves. People want to save too much relative to what people want to borrow and spend, so the government is borrowing and spending --- as it should. Later, when incomes rise (automatically increasing taxation revenue) and people want to spend more, the government will cut its spending and pay back the money it has borrowed --- as it should. As for the Chinese: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3022494/Re-US-beats-UK-and-Germany-by-a-mile-modified.aspx[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
I am glad unemployment has dropped, obviously. I just don't see how we can believe that Rudd money caused it.
John Carson wrote:
Later, when incomes rise (automatically increasing taxation revenue) and people want to spend more, the government will cut its spending and pay back the money it has borrowed --- as it should.
Well, Rudd certainly wants to punish people for earning money. Stand by for tax rates to rise.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
John Carson wrote:
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
I am glad unemployment has dropped, obviously. I just don't see how we can believe that Rudd money caused it.
John Carson wrote:
Later, when incomes rise (automatically increasing taxation revenue) and people want to spend more, the government will cut its spending and pay back the money it has borrowed --- as it should.
Well, Rudd certainly wants to punish people for earning money. Stand by for tax rates to rise.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
I am glad unemployment has dropped, obviously. I just don't see how we can believe that Rudd money caused it.
The striking thing about Australia's recent history is how retail spending has held up, which has had flow-on effects to the rest of the economy. I find it hard to doubt that the cash handouts are an important reason for this. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/06/2562410.htm[^] You might also note from the same story that our trade surplus has gone up. Apparently, not all the money has gone to the Chinese.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
People want to save too much relative to what people want to borrow and spend
Shame on them for wanting to stay out of debt as much as possible and operate on what they actually have.
John Carson wrote:
so the government is borrowing and spending --- as it should
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.
John Carson wrote:
Later, when incomes rise
Due to inflation, the numbers will be higher, its value will not. Centrally planned economies are doomed to fail.
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
-
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
-
Christian Graus wrote:
still think our stimulus policy was a stupid mistake.
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
Christian Graus wrote:
How long are we going to be paying off our Rudd money, most of which was surely passed to the Chinese through flat screen TVs and blu ray players?
Mainly we will be just paying it off to ourselves. People want to save too much relative to what people want to borrow and spend, so the government is borrowing and spending --- as it should. Later, when incomes rise (automatically increasing taxation revenue) and people want to spend more, the government will cut its spending and pay back the money it has borrowed --- as it should. As for the Chinese: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3022494/Re-US-beats-UK-and-Germany-by-a-mile-modified.aspx[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
In the not-so-long-run inflation can cause far more unemployment than it cures.
John Carson wrote:
Later, when incomes rise
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.
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:
Yeah, much better for people to be unemployed.
In the not-so-long-run inflation can cause far more unemployment than it cures.
John Carson wrote:
Later, when incomes rise
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.
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:
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
-
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
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
-
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.