Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 79
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,235
    Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan has refused to deny Opposition claims that Labor is borrowing $100 million a day to pay back Government debt, but says the Opposition is skewing the figures and they do not represent how strong the economy is.
    Right, right. Any strength is due to the Coalition's previous strong economic management resulting in a surplus. Now KRudd's mad spending on botched insulation and school buildings has put us into debt. Layba is trying to hide this by more borrowing. But one day, it will have to be repaid. Do our rusted-on Laybarites have any ideas how?
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  2. #2
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    But one day, it will have to be repaid. Do our rusted-on Laybarites have any ideas how?
    That not true the government could easily roll-over this debt over indefinitely.

    RBA Governor Glen Stevens said just the other day that Australia has "virtually no net public debt", if he say it's not a problem I'd be inclined to agree with him over Tony Abbott and his spin machine.

    Secondly, I'd argue that a government that cannot find a way invest debt finance to promote productivty (GDP) growth that will result in a revenue increase greater than the cost of debt shouldn't be in government.

  3. #3
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    RBA Governor Glen Stevens said just the other day that Australia has "virtually no net public debt", if he say it's not a problem I'd be inclined to agree with him over Tony Abbott and his spin machine.
    Don't you get it? If an individual with any kind of qualifications and formal education expresses an opinion that does not sit well with Jono, they must by very definition be a "Lefty Annointed" and a tool of the ALP machine.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    14,516
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Secondly, I'd argue that a government that cannot find a way invest debt finance to promote productivty (GDP) growth that will result in a revenue increase greater than the cost of debt shouldn't be in government.
    Perhaps we could just use what he says as an economic compass; I mean would we really need to raise interest rates to slow the economy if the RBA chief just came out and said something like, "Upon consideration of the figures, we're f*cked. I mean, seriously, f*cking f*cked:.
    So what's your excuse? For running like the devil's chasing you?

    See you in another life, brotha.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    That not true the government could easily roll-over this debt over indefinitely.
    That they could is, of course, possible. Whether they should is clearly problematic. If a government accumulates new debts but doesn't repay them, it goes broke. vis-a-vis Greece, et al. So to suggest that they could is a bit silly, because it would leave the government, eventually, in a situation where it cannot borrow any more money.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  6. #6
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    That they could is, of course, possible. Whether they should is clearly problematic. If a government accumulates new debts but doesn't repay them, it goes broke. vis-a-vis Greece, et al. So to suggest that they could is a bit silly, because it would leave the government, eventually, in a situation where it cannot borrow any more money.
    Not at all here you make the asumption that they continue to take on debt at faster rate than revenue is growing. There wouldn't be any problem to keep growing debt at 3.5 percent per annum in line with GDP.

    Secondly both yourself and the Libs neglect to show any objective measures that suggest that their is any problem servicing this or a higher debt level.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    That they could is, of course, possible. Whether they should is clearly problematic. If a government accumulates new debts but doesn't repay them, it goes broke. vis-a-vis Greece, et al. So to suggest that they could is a bit silly, because it would leave the government, eventually, in a situation where it cannot borrow any more money.
    What I think is a more likely happening if this type of policy was introduced would be that banks etc would see the government as a debt risk and be more reluctant to give large sums of money, or would at a higher rate of interest.

    The idea that debt does not need to be repaid at some stage is absurd. Eventually all organisations that are owed money will eventually make a call on the debts and they have to be repaid, or the government defaults.

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator
    What I think is a more likely happening if this type of policy was introduced would be that banks etc would see the government as a debt risk and be more reluctant to give large sums of money, or would at a higher rate of interest.
    The mechanism involved would be the lowering of our AAA international credit rating, which would as a matter of course increase the cost of capital and push up interest rates across the board
    The idea that debt does not need to be repaid at some stage is absurd. Eventually all organisations that are owed money will eventually make a call on the debts and they have to be repaid, or the government defaults.
    Theoretically the debts can be rotated indefinitely by repaying while raising new borrowings

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,235
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Not at all here you make the asumption that they continue to take on debt at faster rate than revenue is growing. There wouldn't be any problem to keep growing debt at 3.5 percent per annum in line with GDP.
    But the debt has ballooned out, and growing at 3.5% pa is quite an assumption given the way that KRudd almost drove our miners to South Africa and Canada with his tax grab, and Gillardova's "fair work" bureaucracy has killed jobs under three hours.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Secondly both yourself and the Libs neglect to show any objective measures that suggest that their is any problem servicing this or a higher debt level.
    Why not prove that it can be serviced? The last Labor government left a huge debt which took a long time for the Howard/Costello government to repay.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,235
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    That not true the government could easily roll-over this debt over indefinitely.

    RBA Governor Glen Stevens said just the other day that Australia has "virtually no net public debt", if he say it's not a problem I'd be inclined to agree with him over Tony Abbott and his spin machine.
    Not when a number of supposedly impartial civil servants have become mouthpieces for Labor, especially Ken Henry. But see:

    Auditor slams ALP pork barrel
    Nicola Berkovic,
    The Australian, 28 July 2010

    JULIA Gillard has been forced to defend her government against allegations of pork-barrelling after a damning audit report found a key part of its stimulus program favoured Labor electorates and was delivered too late to protect the economy from the global financial crisis.

    The release of the report yesterday, during the election campaign, embarrassed Labor, which used a similar report during the 2007 election campaign to accuse John Howard of rorting the regional partnerships scheme.

    The opposition seized on the findings to intensify its attack on Labor's "waste and mismanagement".

    The report found major delays in rolling out $550 million worth of projects meant the scheme did not stimulate the economy in the timeframe intended.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Not at all here you make the asumption that they continue to take on debt at faster rate than revenue is growing. There wouldn't be any problem to keep growing debt at 3.5 percent per annum in line with GDP.
    Fast rate of revenue growing = high tax intake. You and Labor obviously like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Secondly both yourself and the Libs neglect to show any objective measures that suggest that their is any problem servicing this or a higher debt level.
    Both yourself and Labor neglect to show how taxpayers benefit by having their taxes thrown down the drains spent on repaying debt.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  12. #12
    CC International Master TheJoker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Fast rate of revenue growing = high tax intake. You and Labor obviously like it..
    So did John Howard... When GDP increase obviously tax revenue increases even though the tax rate remains the same. Although under Howard the tax burden as a percentage of GDP increased. Grow up Igor there is nothing wrong with higher tax revenues that are a result of growing economy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Both yourself and Labor neglect to show how taxpayers benefit by having their taxes thrown down the drains spent on repaying debt.
    Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz said on the 7:30 Report that our stimulus was one of the best implemented in the developed world, and whilst it is ineviatble that there was some waste in his opinion there would have been much greater loses if the economy wasn't stimulated and allowed to go into recession.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    13,635
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz said on the 7:30 Report that our stimulus was one of the best implemented in the developed world, and whilst it is ineviatble that there was some waste in his opinion there would have been much greater loses if the economy wasn't stimulated and allowed to go into recession.
    TheJokerrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! You took that away from me naughty boy!
    Last edited by ER; 28-07-2010 at 02:44 PM.
    https://www.nswca.org.au/index.php
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

    From this day (13-11-20) onwards, I will only be posting, shouting and reading none other than chess related posts.
    Fully vaccinated since October, 21, 2021

  14. #14
    CC International Master Goughfather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz said on the 7:30 Report that our stimulus was one of the best implemented in the developed world, and whilst it is ineviatble that there was some waste in his opinion there would have been much greater loses if the economy wasn't stimulated and allowed to go into recession.
    Lefty annointed. Tool of the ALP machine and union thugocracy.

    Yep, that'll do, pig. That'll do.
    "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld, The Little Kicks

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,540
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    So did John Howard... When GDP increase obviously tax revenue increases even though the tax rate remains the same. Although under Howard the tax burden as a percentage of GDP increased. Grow up Igor there is nothing wrong with higher tax revenues that are a result of growing economy.
    And for that Howard was rightly criticised. The difference, though, that he recognised it and initiated tax cuts, while Labor squandered on wasteful projects.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheJoker
    Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz said on the 7:30 Report that our stimulus was one of the best implemented in the developed world, and whilst it is ineviatble that there was some waste in his opinion there would have been much greater loses if the economy wasn't stimulated and allowed to go into recession.
    I am happy you don't cite Nobel peace price winner Arafat's opinion on world's politics.

    I am not sure Nobel prize winning economists Hayek and Milton would agree with Stiglitz (who was quite polite not to say that our stimulus was as wasteful as in other countries).
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •