OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[crocodile]

I'm not sure you addressed my question. Why are they looking at tax cuts ?

I'm not sure I actually answered anything directly. Deliberately. They don't need extra money to pay down debt. I know I'm writing in riddles but given the almost dogmatic belief by the public at large regarding debt and budget balances it's time to have a good think about this. It really is quite unfortunate that people know that politicians tell fibs but still believe them when they spruik mistruths relying on the general public's gullibility to acceptance.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I'm not sure you addressed my question. Why are they looking at tax cuts ?

I assume he was referring to increasing the size of the economy, which tax cuts could feasibly promote.

 

[Gronk]

I assume he was referring to increasing the size of the economy, which tax cuts could feasibly promote.

That was in my original question. I know that tax cuts would stimulate a contracted economy, but in the long term it yields less receipts, which means cuts to services and job losses in the public sector. I think.

Old mate @crocodile will zero in on this when he is good and ready.

 

[Bandwagon]

Good one nong-head. So what about the story, that isn't Alex Jones's, he is just reposting it. You morons always just play the man, never the actual topic.

You know the corruption that is being exposed here? Alex Jones isn't the story, but that's what you do. Get everyone arguing and talking about everything but what is actually meaningful and going on.

What about the reporting son, what about the reporting?

I aint wasting my time with anything Alex Jones has to say mate, that includes any shit he reports, the guys a f**king loon huckster grifting a living selling brain pills to morons.

 

[Bandwagon]

That was in my original question. I know that tax cuts would stimulate a contracted economy, but in the long term it yields less receipts, which means cuts to services and job losses in the public sector. I think.

Old mate @crocodile will zero in on this when he is good and ready.

It only means cuts to government spending if you are obsessed with the idea of running a surplus in the short to medium term.

 

[Gronk]

It only means cuts to government spending if you are obsessed with the idea of running a surplus in the short to medium term.

Obsessed? Who's obsessed?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why shouldn't the Liberals change their approach to the budget now that they have joined Labor in courting voters who demand welfare?

 

[Gronk]

Why shouldn't the Liberals change their approach to the budget now that they have joined Labor in courting voters who demand welfare?

 

[Gary Gutful]

I hope you're right. I can't think of a single good reason why the government budget should not always be in deficit.

It depends why they are in deficit.

If they are in deficit because of reckless spending on shit projects and bloated, inefficient government departments then that's a problem.

 

[Bandwagon]

It depends why they are in deficit.

If they are in deficit because of reckless spending on shit projects and bloated, inefficient government departments then that's a problem.

Is it though?

I know when you use that kind of language it certainly sounds awfully bad, but what are the real consequences of that?

Of course it would be better if that money was being used more productively, but would it be better if that money wasn't being used at all, and that's a valid question because if that's the choice, then what you have is higher unemployment and higher unused capacity within our economy.

And those are far worse than government "waste".

Where this kind of waste is really undesirable is when it begins to supplant more productive use of capital and capacity, because that then drives poor productivity growth and ultimately higher levels of inflation than is desirable. But I don't think that's all that likely at the moment.

Government deficits / surpluses should be primarily planned upon how much money the economy needs the government to spend in order to maintain whatever level of economic indicators is best for the economy, and whilst it's better if that results in nice things rather than "waste", it's not all bad if keeps our economy ticking along.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Is it though?

I know when you use that kind of language it certainly sounds awfully bad, but what are the real consequences of that?

Of course it would be better if that money was being used more productively, but would it be better if that money wasn't being used at all, and that's a valid question because if that's the choice, then what you have is higher unemployment and higher unused capacity within our economy.

And those are far worse than government "waste".

Where this kind of waste is really undesirable is when it begins to supplant more productive use of capital and capacity, because that then drives poor productivity growth and ultimately higher levels of inflation than is desirable. But I don't think that's all that likely at the moment.

Government deficits / surpluses should be primarily planned upon how much money the economy needs the government to spend in order to maintain whatever level of economic indicators is best for the economy, and whilst it's better if that results in nice things rather than "waste", it's not all bad if keeps our economy ticking along.

I would hope that planning around deficits/surpluses focuses on more than just economic indicators and considers levels of service across health, education, transport, energy, water etc etc.

Yes, over the short term you could argue that some level of wasteful spending that keeps people employed is better than the alternative of not spending at all but that isn't really an alternative that I am promoting.

I don't have a problem with a deficit. I am just suggesting that government spend needs to be targeting the areas where it is needed, otherwise it isn't sustainable. This is even more true of a government with a large deficit.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It depends why they are in deficit.

If they are in deficit because of reckless spending on shit projects and bloated, inefficient government departments then that's a problem.

Apparently not, because they can just print more money with zero consequences. Google 'new economics'. We should conduct a prolonged, nationwide scientific experiment over a couple of decades to prove its viability. For all their imagination, its proponents can't think of how it could possibly go wrong.

 

[Bandwagon]

Apparently not, because they can just print more money with zero consequences. Google 'new economics'. We should conduct a prolonged, nationwide scientific experiment over a couple of decades to prove its viability. For all their imagination, its proponents can't think of how it could possibly go wrong.

If you want to google it try "modern monetary theory", but yeah, as a sovereign nation, that issues debt in it's own currency, we can simply print more money, it's not unconditional, but it can be done, and pretty much without consequence.

Biggest impediment is that financial markets would freak right the f**k out, unless of course you're the US Fed, and you're printing straight into those very same markets, in which case it's all like, yay!, when the printers go Brrrrrrrrrr!

 

[Gary Gutful]

Do printers really go 'brrrrrrr'?

They aren't cars FFS.

 

[Bandwagon]

Do printers really go 'brrrrrrr'?

They aren't cars FFS.

Cars go Brrrrroooommm

FFS

 

[Gary Gutful]

Not my shitbox.

 

[hindy111]

Not my shitbox.

Up early for a Sunday. Go for a jog mate?

 

[hindy111]

Not my shitbox.

Did you end up buying the Dodge viper?

 

[Gary Gutful]

Did you end up buying the Dodge viper?

I bought a Ford econovan. Its a car and a shed all in one!

 

[Gary Gutful]

Up early for a Sunday. Go for a jog mate?

*flog