So why would the RBA gov'nur drop hints to the Government to borrow to invest in infrasctructure?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Australian Economics
- Thread starter 1eyedtiger
- Start date
Because he believes in fallacious ideas about the need to "stimulate" aggregate demand.New York Tiger said:
Giardiasis said:
our laws are based on morals/values. who decides it is wrong to steal, murder, embezzle, bribe? in your ideal world it is a free for all.
what you advocate seems to be an idealistic utopia where human good triumphs.
we have had this debate before, but i still do not understand how you think a person with a severe disability (for example) should be looked after? charity? and if that fails because enough people do donate they die?
you also assume the people who are unemployed are because of personal choice. this is undoubtedly the case for some but not for all. considering in your world education would not be subsidized by government there would be more people unemployed as they would not have the skills needed to work. they would not be able to afford housing, making employment very hard to hold if they do get a job, they would not be able to afford decent clothing to be presentable at an interview.
the world you advocate would suit those with money and leave the rest to suffer.
I'm on your side of the political fence Giardiasis.
But on this one I think you're wrong mate.
Sorry.
But on this one I think you're wrong mate.
Sorry.
You have me wrong. I recognise the importance of social cooperation, without it we would have autarky and poverty. In order to have social cooperation, individuals need to be protected from the use of force by others, and contracts need to be enforced. Government is effectively the legitimate use of force. Hence government has a legitimate function in this regard (although there are arguments that the free market can provide these services more efficiently).Brodders17 said:
I'm not claiming that liberalism provides utopia, injustice would still exist. However what are the alternatives and which system provides the conditions that best provides for all? Without a doubt, the answer is liberalism. It is not through acting "good" that so many people are provided all of the comforts of modern living, but through individuals acting in their self interest. Yes I believe charity to be a much more effective mechanism to help those in need than government welfare. It also places the moral obligation directly on individuals, instead of indirectly through public policy. People can't use the government as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility.
People might prefer unemployment to the jobs on offer, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't accept a job offer on terms they deem a better alternative to unemployment. In my world the government wouldn't have anything to do with education. Without government subsidised tertiary education, people would have more money, hence other jobs would be created that didn't exist before. Also tertiary education would be cheaper because there wouldn't be thousands of students bidding up the price with borrowed money. Government subsidised tertiary education creates an oversupply of tertiary educated people, it doesn't help reduce unemployment. It achieves the opposite outcome.
The world I advocate allows the market process to function properly, it allow prices to most accurately reflect preferences and allow entrepreneurs to perform economic calculation to most efficiently allocate capital. In contrast to your claim, every single individual in society would be better off, those with the most money, and those with the least.
No need to apologise mate? I'd like to see some counter argument to demonstrate why you think I'm wrong though.poppa x said:
People still believe inKnightersRevenge said:
I prefer data to "belief". The data is undeniable. So your denial cannot be rationally based. Much more like ideology, especially when you link to economists rather than scientists when erroneously refuting scientific claims .Giardiasis said:
After so many failures to repay the debt, wouldn't it be better for the Grecos to exit the euro? Could be a short-term disruption (disaster?) but could better for the long-term. Not many other economies would be badly affected either way.
mld said:
It's a terrible situation for the Grecos as they shouldn't have to rely or be controlled by another country. I reckon they should take it on the chin and grow up. Re-print the drachma, re-build your own economy, learn from mistakes and then re-enter the euro in better times.
TigerForce said:
All countries entering the Euro had to literally smash their printing presses. The expense of setting up a currency from zero in an insolvent country doesn't look appealing. Maybe this is the crisis Europe had to have? From the cheap seats it looks like they didn't have a contingency for what to do when the traditional option of "printing money" isn't available because of the shared currency. Unfortunately it looks like they are a long way from coming up with a real solution.
No contingency alright. Greece is like the little brother who has to keep asking his big brother what to do. At least there seems to be some stimulation happening now with some excessive spending and a huge wake up call for them to pay bills and taxes, but buying luxury goods and not investing/saving to build capital is not going to help them much in the long term. It's that paranoid feeling of the world ending for these crazy Grecos.KnightersRevenge said:
LOL Joe Hockey saying that the fundamentals of the Australian and global economy are "still good". He didn't care to eloborate what fundamentals he is referring to though. He obviously can't be referring to the record levels of private and public debt, record low interest rates, the huge increase in the money supply or the huge asset price bubbles in stocks, property, fine arts, and bonds?
