Stiglitz and the stimulus [sf. Federal Election 2010]

[Capablanca-Fan]

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?

[TheJoker]

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.

[Goughfather]

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.

[Desmond]

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:.

[Spiny Norman]

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.

[TheJoker]

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.

[Garvinator]

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.

[Ian Murray]

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

[Capablanca-Fan]

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.

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.

[Capablanca-Fan]

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.

[Igor_Goldenberg]

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.

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.

[TheJoker]

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.

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.

[ER]

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!

[Goughfather]

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.

[Igor_Goldenberg]

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.

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).