Australian unemployment rate *falls*
-
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
-
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
Unemployment in Tasmania has gone up, so I guess it's not all good news.
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 )