Non Footy Chat Thread II

[the phantom menace]

"(fair enough)"

 

[hindy111]

I figured he agreed with my assertion that it doesn't matter. "Nope (it doesn't)."

Yes.

 

[strider]

I figured he agreed with my assertion that it doesn't matter. "Nope (it doesn't)."

It was a "yeah, nah" if ever i've seen one

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yeah, way to miss the point

Is there anything you can think of that Buddy and Hodgess have in common that Wally Lewis doesn't ?

who cares if they're left-handed?

 

[Bandwagon]

Of course the budget was going to be a surplus. Its just luck. Unemployment at record lows. Mining companies with record profits.
Nothing to do with who is in charge.
Rabbits

Surplus' or deficits are really only political play toys at any rate, the way they are promoted has nothing to do with economic management and everything to do with convincing the plebs to vote for you.

A surplus for a surplus' sake is as dumb as dogshit, I mean imagine being convinced that the government taxing you more than it's spending just for the sake of it is good thing.

Yet people hold onto that dogma.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Surplus' or deficits are really only political play toys at any rate, the way they are promoted has nothing to do with economic management and everything to do with convincing the plebs to vote for you.

A surplus for a surplus' sake is as dumb as dogshit, I mean imagine being convinced that the government taxing you more than it's spending just for the sake of it is good thing.

Yet people hold onto that dogma.

Having a surplus means you have strategic wiggle room. It’s certainly better than a deficit, which is unsustainable.

 

[Bandwagon]

Having a surplus means you have strategic wiggle room. It’s certainly better than a deficit, which is unsustainable.

Like when the previous government said exactly that in regards to our then accumulated deficits, then went on to double that accumulated government debt, only to double it again in response to the pandemic?

Is that the "wiggle room" you mean?

Government debt and budgets are not the same as household debt and budget, whether you have a deficit or a surplus is about what the economy needs, at that time, not about saving for a rainy day.

As for the sustainability of deficits, you might want learn from history, rather than parroting political talking points which have little to no basis in reality.

Fact check: Did the Government inherit the 'worst set of accounts' in history?

Governments have long blamed their predecessors for the state of affairs they inherit, but Liberal Deputy Leader Julie Bishop says the challenge left for Treasurer Joe Hockey set a record. On March 16 she told ABC Radio that "all areas of the budget have to be considered for savings because we...

www.abc.net.au

As you can plainly see there, the norm is a deficit, surpluses are the exception. Then of course there's all that accumulated debt..... But then again...........



........what the f**k? Our relative level of debt goes down in periods of repeated deficit? What voodoo magic is this?

Like I said in my previous post, the current terms of discussion around debt / surplus' is all about politics not economics.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

'Per cent of GDP' is a very deceptive metric. There's already a lot of moving parts wished away in that little magic number. I suspect you've been smoking from the magic money tree.

If there was no benefit to running a surplus, Labor is the last f**king government that would try to deliver one.

 

[Bandwagon]

'Per cent of GDP' is a very deceptive metric. There's already a lot of moving parts wished away in that little magic number. I suspect you've been smoking from the magic money tree.
.

Not at all, it's the level of debt in relation to the size of the economy, which in turn is indicative of the governments ability to raise revenue through taxation, what better measure is there? And to the contrary, using GDP considers far more moving parts within the economy than just looking at a single number ( in this case the amount of any given deficit ).

Like measuring a teams performance on points differential, you can't just use points against and say ooooooh big number, shit team, without considering points for, which might well be a bigger number, making the team far less shit.

If there was no benefit to running a surplus, Labor is the last f**king government that would try to deliver one.

You're not listening mate, at no point did I say there is no benefit to running a surplus, what I've said was the public discourse around surplus' / deficits is all political, not economic.

So there very much is a benefit, it just so happens that because public discourse around fiscal balance is based in politics, not economics, that the benefit for any given government these days is political. And the mere fact that you invoke Labor into the conversation in the manner you do there is a perfect example of what I'm saying.

There are sound economic reasons for running a surplus or a deficit, but saving for a rainy day isn't one of them. Generally running a surplus means that the economy grows less than it would have done had the government run a deficit, and conversely running a deficit means the economy grows more than it would have done had we run a surplus. This is because the governments spending is a significant proportion of GDP.

Here's how much...

Australia Government Spending To GDP

Government spending in Australia was last recorded at 26.8 percent of GDP in 2022 . This page provides - Australia Government Spending To Gdp- actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

tradingeconomics.com

Here's GDP growth to compare.....

Australia GDP Annual Growth Rate

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Australia expanded 0.80 percent in the third quarter of 2024 over the same quarter of the previous year. This page provides - Australia GDP Annual Growth Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

tradingeconomics.com

Obviously there's a lot more going on, but you can see the relationship there,

Economic management is not about whether or not you have a surplus, it's about when to have a surplus, and when to have a deficit and how big either should be.

And that's why, but for all the excuses, that despite campaigning in 2013 that they would deliver a surplus in their first year and every year after, that the previous government failed to deliver even one, and when they proclaimed that they had, it fell to pieces because given the conditions had they done so, they quite obviously would have pushed the country into a very deep recession.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Just looks like shit running smoothly until Covid, which was then blamed on the previous government.

 

[Gronk]

Dude picked the fight with the wrong guy.

 

[Bandwagon]

Just looks like shit running smoothly until Covid, which was then blamed on the previous government.

Hmm, yeah mostly, so you'd describe all those consecutive deficits as "shit running smoothly" ?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Dude picked the fight with the wrong guy.

He’s got a point. King was a great author, but he would be well aware he’s lucky he got out before he could get canceled.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Hmm, yeah mostly, so you'd describe all those consecutive deficits as "shit running smoothly" ?

They just have to be sustainable, like I said in the first place.

 

[Bandwagon]

They just have to be sustainable, like I said in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you said was.....

Having a surplus means you have strategic wiggle room. It’s certainly better than a deficit, which is unsustainable.

...........meaning ( having )a deficit is unsustainable?

If not, then I guess we agree that deficits aren't a problem in and of themselves.

 

[Chipmunk]

Phil Coorey in The Financial Review reported that the current Government has changed the calculations for the reporting of the Budget, and had the previous Government used the same calculations, they would have had two Budget surpluses in the two previous years prior to COVID.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you said was.....

...........meaning ( having )a deficit is unsustainable?

It is. You know sustainability refers to the long term, right?

If not, then I guess we agree that deficits aren't a problem in and of themselves.

I think anything that is unsustainable is inherently problematic.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Phil Coorey in The Financial Review reported that the current Government has changed the calculations for the reporting of the Budget, and had the previous Government used the same calculations, they would have had two Budget surpluses in the two previous years prior to COVID.

Just as well too.

 

[Bandwagon]

It is. You know sustainability refers to the long term, right?

Well yeah, and I've shown you long term consecutive deficits, and that it's been sustainable.

I think anything that is unsustainable is inherently problematic.

You appear to be travelling in circles mate, with this and..........

They just have to be sustainable, like I said in the first place.

....either they are or they aren't? I mean they can be either, depending upon the circumstances, but here you seem to be wanting an each way bet.

 

[Gronk]

Phil Coorey in The Financial Review reported that the current Government has changed the calculations for the reporting of the Budget, and had the previous Government used the same calculations, they would have had two Budget surpluses in the two previous years prior to COVID.

I'd like that fact checked bc Phil Coorey gives free hand jobs to libs in his free time.

The headline says "rule change" but the body of his work says ...

Rule change helps deliver first surplus in 15 years

A methodology change has enabled Labor to forecast a slender surplus for 2022-23, the first in 15 years. If the same rule has been in force a few years ago, Josh Frydenberg could have claimed bragging rights, too.

www.afr.com