OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Bandwagon]

I haven't a lot of idea how to run an economy. But I feel like most people running the country would have some idea even though we all call the stupid and clueless. And if anyone on here was trying to do their job and making decision I am sure many would go pear shaped also. If it was all that simple my guess is they would make the changes.

I don't think our government is out to get us at all. We are competing globally and they are trying to do best for us both short and long term.

As far as a surplus goes I have no idea. But I've heard my accountant say multiple times having a strong surplus makes planning for future a lot easier and gives more options on the board.

Anyhows pur lives are better then most around the world so I am reasonably happy how things are at the moment.

Some seem to have no f**king idea, and that isn't surprising when you think about it. Doing what ever they did before politics isn't always gonna prepare you to run an economy.

The big issue is always the politics, I mean there is some dumb as f**k shit presented to us as arguments, because they figure it washes . And it does wash because most people don't really care enough about it to take the time to be actually informed about how this shit is supposed to work.

 

[Bandwagon]

In regards to the state government projects, I have a personal viewpoint on this.

Shovel ready (as Bandy pointed out)? Yes? Good.
Funded in your forward estimates? Yes? Good.

Then, the federal government covers the cost to start work now (rather than whenever scheduled in the forward estimates) but the state government then has to forego the equivalent amount of GST revenue when the work was actually scheduled in their budget.

This way, we don't blow our federal surplus (Shut up! I like a surplus!!!) but the projects get moved forward and starts providing benefits, now.

Oh, I mentioned the GST...there's another can of worms that needs fixing...

Why do you like a surplus?

I mean the literal definition of a surplus is that the government taxes more money than it spends. Which means that in any given year it takes more money from taxpayers than it actually needs.

How is this a good thing?

 

[Gary Gutful]

Because they are saving for a rainy day?

 

[Twizzle]

Its the Liberal way, they are obsessed with surplus

 

[Bandwagon]

Because they are saving for a rainy day?

Well I'm f**king dying here waiting for it to just damn rain.

 

[Bandwagon]

Its the Liberal way, they are obsessed with surplus

Only because they have managed to convince so many that it is the measure of good economic management.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Its the Liberal way, they are obsessed with surplus

I seem to recall Rudd, Swan, Gillard and Bowen promising a surplus on more than one occasion. They could be accused of being obsessed as well given the number of times it came up during that period.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Well I'm f**king dying here waiting for it to just damn rain.

Patience grass hopper. When it rains it will be f**ken amazing!

 

[Bandwagon]

Patience grass hopper. When it rains it will be f**ken amazing!

When the rain pours across the rice paper, without leaving a trace, only then will I be ready for surplus.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why do you like a surplus?

I mean the literal definition of a surplus is that the government taxes more money than it spends. Which means that in any given year it takes more money from taxpayers than it actually needs.

How is this a good thing?

I assume he means having more cash than debt.

 

[Bandwagon]

I seem to recall Rudd, Swan, Gillard and Bowen promising a surplus on more than one occasion. They could be accused of being obsessed as well given the number of times it came up during that period.

This is because they were too f**kin' weak to offer a counter to the narrative.

Keating managed to sell " the recession we had to have ". Because he wasn't an economic pissant.

 

[Twizzle]

I seem to recall Rudd, Swan, Gillard and Bowen promising a surplus on more than one occasion. They could be accused of being obsessed as well given the number of times it came up during that period.

I wouldn't say they were obsessed, they just wanted to be one of the cool guys too

 

[Bandwagon]

I assume he means having more cash than debt.

That's not a surplus.

Besides, surpluses merely serve to transfer debt from public to private hands, else wise you have no growth.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I wouldn't say they were obsessed, they just wanted to be one of the cool guys too

Absolute pissants.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

That's not a surplus.

Maybe not but the fact is not all debt fuels investment. Often it's just about buying votes, and the main beneficiaries are happily spreading the costs to others.

Besides surpluses merely serve to transfer debt from public to private hands, else wise you have no growth.

Private debt is more ethical than public debt, which my kids will have to help service.

 

[Gary Gutful]

 

[Bandwagon]

Maybe not but the fact is not all debt fuels investment. Often it's just about buying votes, and the main beneficiaries are happily spreading the costs to others.

That's an argument for good vs bad debt. However it's unquestionable that all debt fuels economic activity,

Private debt is more ethical than public debt, which my kids will have to help service.

Firstly, that's simply not true, provided the economy expands debt retires it's self proportionally due to the changing value money .

Secondly, Why is it better for your kids for you to have more debt , and the government to have less, all because it taxed you more than it needed to? How is this more "ethical"?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Why do you like a surplus?

I mean the literal definition of a surplus is that the government taxes more money than it spends. Which means that in any given year it takes more money from taxpayers than it actually needs.

How is this a good thing?

Because they are saving for a rainy day?

Well, at present, that comes later, Gary.

Right now, we can pay down our debt. Reduce our interest payments. Give us more scope to borrow in the future if needed (or if, as we've touched on, we find a good idea that we need money for). And maybe we can put a little aside for the future, yeah.

Is it the be-all-and-end-all? No. But should we be trying to do it? Absolutely.

And so, right now, I think there are other levers we can try to pull before acquiring more debt (already discussed) but I'm ok with borrowing if we can come up with good ideas that provide a good return (already discussed).

 

[Twizzle]

Absolute pissants.

I think we need to exclude the worlds greatest treasurer, he was also a bit obsessive when it came to surplus, the others just toed the party line for mine

I dont think they cared so much but had to be seen to be cool with the idea of surplus

 

[strider]

Didnt alot of people claim we were in a good position to handle the GFC compared to other countries because of previous years of surpluses? .... or was that just the same merkins who bang on about surpluses?