Sign in or 

|
snnsx |
20. I told you so...
Feb 19 2009, 12:30 AM EST
When the going gets tough, it is the countries who are more in debt that suffer the most.I challenge the naysayers who downplayed this problem to come back and defend their positions now. There is an interesting and relevant article in today's SMH that adds more to what I said originally when I started this thread: http://business.smh.com.au/business/dont-mention-the-debt-20090219-8c6e.html?page=-1 0 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
21. RE: I told you so...
Feb 19 2009, 11:51 AM EST
"When the going gets tough, it is the countries who are more in debt that suffer the most.That article backs up exactly what I was saying: "Deregulation brought growth alright. But there is a yin for every yang. The Opposition may well brag that it left office with zero debt - zero government debt that is - as the upshot of policy was to lump it onto the consumer." There is a big difference between the US and Australia. In the US the Bush administration spent taxpayers money as fast as it could dole it out to its cronies with government contracts while encouraging the banks to give home loans to everyone who asked, whether they could afford the repayments or not. The result was that the government surplus built up during the Clinton years was turned into a massive deficit and the national debt was nearly doubled from $US5 trillion to $US9 trillion. This means that the only option Obama has to restart the economy is to further increase the national debt. In Oz the Howard government increased, rather than reduce the government surplus built up by Keating (using the same method, i.e. flogging off government assets) so that the Rudd government has the resources to fund the stimulus package without burdening the country with massive debts. It is not the same with the private sector debt, companies like Rio Tinto look like having to sell most of their assets to Chinalco to escape their debt problem, since BHP-Billiton was not prepared to shoulder that burden. It is the economic rationalists who got us into this mess and it looks like it will have to be economic nationalists who get us out. 5 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
22. RE: I told you so...
Feb 19 2009, 11:07 PM EST
Symphneology:You said ... During a recession, when unemployment results in lower tax revenue and higher social security expenditure, the correct procedure is for the government to borrow money from overseas to be repaid when the good times return. This enables it to undertake infrastructure projects to increase employment, thus boosting retail spending and expanding the tax base. It is called pump-priming. No amount of borrowing money - whether from inside or outside the country - is appropriate IMO, because you can't borrow your way out of debt! Is this not axiomatic? Money (erroneously called "financial resources") is not the finite resource which we have been lulled into believing. Our government gave up their constitutional RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to regulate the supply of money in Australia to the RBA and no longer has a say in the formation or execution of these policies. The first step towards economic recovery - true recovery - is for the govt to reclaim this right (our constitution charges the government with this responsibility), so that money/credit can be created anew, not borrowed (as if it comes from some finite pit of "financial resources". Until we get this right, all other monetary policy is debt-creating hocus pocus. 0 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
23. RE: I told you so...
Feb 20 2009, 2:44 AM EST
"The first step towards economic recovery - true recovery - is for the govt to reclaim this right (our constitution charges the government with this responsibility), so that money/credit can be created anew, not borrowed (as if it comes from some finite pit of "financial resources"."... so that money/credit can be created anew, not borrowed ..." Money is created by creating credit, credit is created by someone borrowing money. But you are right that the creation of money should be reclaimed by the public sector under the control of a democratically elected government, and not controlled by the private banks, including central banks, for their own profits. 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
24. RE: Reduce the shocking National Debt of 600 Billion
Feb 22 2009, 4:17 PM EST
As an American who is about to move to Australia from the U.S., excessive foreign debt and entitlements are some of the greatest risks any nation can undertake. Do NOT live outside of your means and become entangled in foreign affairs. Australia should stay the last sane place in the world. Keep private capital private and away from nationalization, pay down your debts, live within your means, get out of ALL wars and stop rubbing the u.s.'s back. Foreign debt will destroy America's currency and If you follow the same type of supply side "debt doesn't matter" economic thinking that the u.s. does then your country is just as doomed in the long run. Read up on Austrian school economics and watch some videos on youtube by Peter Schiff. He predicted the entire financial fallout in the u.s. and our long term outlook is even more dismal, you think 600 billion is bad?? I don't know what that is as percentage of Australian GDP but the united states total indebtedness including entitlements like medicare and social secirty as of 2007 was 53 TRILLION!!. This country is going to shit and I love Australia, I lived there for a year already I would just hate to see Australia following the same reckless trends of borrowing and consumption that the U.S. promotes as a viable economy. Government destroys countries not the people. The last thing you aussies want is more government in your lives. Government bureaucracy sucks at everything, and the more people that live in a country the more its flaws become apparent. Trust me, the reason you guys can even manage socialized medicine is because of your smaller population. The government should stay out of people lives: enforce contracts, maintain national security, judicial system, and environmental protection through private property rights are the only things i think government should be tasked with. Then you're prime minister can take a pay cut because he won't have so much to do ;)
1
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
trgh |
25. RE: I told you so...
Feb 22 2009, 6:26 PM EST
Symp, If I may call you that,You said "Money is created by creating credit, credit is created by someone borrowing money." I agree that this is the way it happens at present, but must it happen this way? This is fundamental to my position on economics - that the creation of all money must happen as a debt is a false axiom. Benjamin Frankin came up against this very thing, and the American colony's refusal to bow to the demands of the Bank of England and their policy of "no new money unless it is borrowed" (from some etheral pit) was the main issue which crippled the American economy and started the war of independence. 1 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
26. RE: I told you so...
Feb 23 2009, 3:15 AM EST
"Is it a false axiom? Where is Wayne Swan going to get the $42 billion for the stimulus package? Where is Obama getting th money for his package? The money comes from debt. Debt is paying for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Debt will pay for the reconstruction after the Victorian bushfires and the Queensland floods. The simple answer is that all money is borrowed from someone, and the simple question is: who has the power to create the credit? It is naive to assume that any nation alone can control its own monetary system, since every nation relies upon its central bank which in turn is reliant upon the international cartel of banks controlled by the International Banking Commission and the Bank of International Settlements in Geneva, Switzerland. The IBC has thirteen members, two each from the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the central banks of Germany, France and Switzerland, and one from the Netherlands, Austria and Scandinavia. It is these thirteen people who decide how much money will be created to fund the programs of governments and corporations around the world. Since they are operating on behalf of the shareholders of the private banks that comprise their network, they see it as contrary to their interests to allow any nation to nationalise the banks. They will therefore put any obstacles they can in the way of Obama acceding to the clamour to nationalise any of the American banks, as this would mean them ceding control of credit creation to a democratically elected administration. Symp 5 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
27. RE: I told you so...
Feb 24 2009, 6:21 PM EST
Symph.Yes, it IS a false axiom. An axiom is a self-evident truth. The fact that Wayne Swan will get his $42B from tax revenues + International loans does not mean that all new money HAS to be borrowed money. It may mean that IN ADHERING TO THE RULES LAID DOWN BY THE INTERNATIONALS, there is no other ALLOWABLE way to create money, but that is all. So, we live in a democracy eh? - lets change the rules. Let's make what is physically possible, financially possible also. Anything else is slavery to shadows, and ignorance of substance. Great men like Frankin & Lincoln knew better. Who has power to create credit? Well, if you read the Australian Constitution, you will see that the Government of Australia has that power. It has abandoned that right but it has the authority to take it back again. Lincoln did it (ok, so it cost him his life), Hitler did it (ok, so it cost him his reputation) Chavez did it (God knows what's going to happen to him!). "They" have done even worse things to obstruct justice, but might is NOT right! 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
28. RE: I told you so...
Feb 24 2009, 6:24 PM EST
Post script:By "They" in that last sentence, I am referring to the International Bankers. 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
29. RE: I told you so...
May 22 2009, 4:45 PM EDT
Some of you folks need to figure out that "printing money" instead of "borrowing money" is not the panacea that it might sound like.You'll end up paying $50 for a loaf of bread and having no ability to purchase any goods from overseas. Bye bye standard of living. There is no simple answer... and anyone that says there is living in a dreamworld. 0 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
30. RE: I told you so...
May 24 2009, 8:42 PM EDT
Dear anonymous (directly above)The assumption that all 'printed money' as you call it, as opposed to 'borrowed money' will cause massive inflation like that we have seen in Germany - is just that - AN ASSUMPTION. It is not based upon fact, but is propaganda generated by those who would lose their control (and ability to exploit) if this current system of finance were to be rectified to make it more realistic. These commonly sited problems of hyper-inflation were created by a combination of events of which some were intentional. The problems were fundamentally regarding the UNCONTROLLED issuing of fresh, un-repayable money. Note my capitalization. The act of creating money is a normal requirement of a growing society, that it should only ever be made available as an interest bearing loan is the problem which causes inflation, not the issue of money creation itself. 3 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
31. RE: I told you so...
May 26 2009, 10:29 PM EDT
I am also looking to move to Australia from the United States. Everyone here has lived in so much debt for so long that they don't even think anything of it anymore. Now the government is having serious problems and the dollar is slipping. I honestly think it is all over...yet no one realizes it. I honestly expect the entire United States government to last no more than 2 years from now. It will collapse on itself much like the USSR did. The citizenship here is completely blind, focusing their time and efforts on what new movies are coming out and who will win this season of American Idol. It is depressing. I desperately fear for my country, and Canada by association. This discussion you are having right here on this forum is something that never happens in the States. People simply don't want to talk about debt. They approach it as a problem best left ignored. I commend you all for holding your elected officials accountable for their spending, and for ensuring a strong economic future for all Australians. Remember: The value of your currency is based on the demand for your currency, and in times like these, a low national debt will ensure that your currency, and economy, remains strong. 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
32. RE: I told you so...
May 27 2009, 12:04 AM EDT
Well. You will be welcome to come - I expect.But don't be fooled - every industrialized country including Australia is in service to the same international financial elite which is currently crushing the US. Some call Australia 'Little America' and in terms of the financial controlling interests, they are correct. I expect that the fate which awaits the U.S. will descend upon us all - unless the financial system is reformed and in its place is erected another system which more truly reflects the wealth of the nation - such as that proposed by the distributive policies of C.H. Douglas (Social Credit). These proposals fell out of favour when what is called the 'Alberta Experiment' seemingly failed. However, it was not SC that failed - the Canadian Federal Government (in Ottawa?) managed to squash every attempted SC policy from coming to fruition. Terence 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
33. RE: Reduce the shocking National Debt of 600 Billion
Jun 15 2009, 2:52 AM EDT
Transferring debt from government to private doesn't reduce the cash (and goods) that have to leave our country to repay the debt. Our superannuation money should be buying the national assets rather than private companies. Then the debt (if there has to be one) can be repaid to us (with interest) rather than sent outside the family. The best off families lend and borrow and work together within the family - it is a lot cheaper than paying someone else to do things for you.
3
out of
3 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
34. RE: Reduce the shocking National Debt of 600 Billion
Jul 13 2009, 9:27 AM EDT
"Between them the Keating and Howard governments turned the PUBLIC national debt into a national credit, a lot of which was invested in the Future Fund for use in emergencies (such as the current crisis) and to cover pensions for retiring baby boomers. This was the correct way to proceed during times when the country was experiencing a minerals boom.the future fund has been appropriated by the liberal govt to guarantee their own pensions and super. It was first touted as the backup fund to ensure telecom services would be provided and maintained if the soon to be private telsta decided to tell the govt to go screw itself after the sale. Precisely what happened except not a cent was spent towards that end. Obviously the whole scheme was another money grubbing lie by these losers that think they are so much smarter than the rest of us. Apparently they are because we all continue to buy their BS on a daily basis. If it was up to me they would all be hanging from a tree for the treason and theft they have committed 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
35. RE: Reduce the shocking National Debt of 600 Billion
Jul 13 2009, 3:26 PM EDT
| Post edited: Jul 13 2009, 3:30 PM EDT
"Transferring debt from government to private doesn't reduce the cash (and goods) that have to leave our country to repay the debt. Our superannuation money should be buying the national assets rather than private companies. Then the debt (if there has to be one) can be repaid to us (with interest) rather than sent outside the family. The best off families lend and borrow and work together within the family - it is a lot cheaper than paying someone else to do things for you."That is more or less what I said (I think). The Americans warning us of the perils of socialism do not seem to understand that is was precisely their extermination of all forms of socialistic ideas that has got them into the mess they are in today. If they had not been so determined to privatize all the publicly owned electricity companies Enron would never have been able to corrupt the political system in California by creating an artificial energy crisis resulting in the recall of the democratically elected governor. In the Public v. Private ownership dichotomy the issue is fairly clear. In a publicly owned utility, the prime interest is in providing the best service/product/facility to the user/consumer, and any surplus income is reinvested in the operation or distribted to less viable sectors to maintain equality of service. In a privately owned utility the prime interest is in increasing dividends to shareholders. Anything which interferes with this prime objective must be eliminated, by reducing staff, by cutting corners on maintenance, by off-shoreing operations, by eliminating competition, and especially by avoiding any public scrutiny by the media or the government. Because so many of these privatized public assets are in the hands of overseas corporations and most of their profits are remitted ot overseas shareholders there is no way they can contribute to the reduction of the massive private national debt. Symp. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
36. RE: Reduce the shocking National Debt of 600 Billion
Oct 25 2009, 9:29 AM EDT
It is not an issue of who the money is owed to but that it is owed at all. We would not have a national debt if the government maintained control of money creation i.e. through the mint. Instead they have sold out to the World Bank and installed the Federal Reserve. The Fed is able to create an unlimited amount of money out of thin air, through credit rather than paper. This means banks are able to lend and collect interest on money that does not even exist. there simply is not enough money in the world to pay back all debt and this is what perpetuates the cycle. this keeps the population locked into employment to pay for an ever growing cost of living, along with a plethora of taxes to maintain the national debt. this is not a national problem but a world one. America is in debt 11.9 trillion dollars to its federal reserve, a private company which has never been audited in history and who's owners are unknown, Britain's national debt just went to 2.5+ trillion pounds after bailing out many of the big banks. interestingly these banks are part of the same group that the national debt is owed too. We currently have a puppet democracy working for the interests of international banksters. Do not be fooled into a debate between puppet A and puppet B as it is simply a diversion as your rights and property are stolen. When a bank forecloses on you, it seizes ownership of your property, even though it lent u imaginary money in the first place. Don't take my word for it, research this yourself. the way to end the system is to educate everyone and to withdraw from it en masse. let us not continue down the path that America is leading. it is now legal in the United States for the government to arrest you and imprison you for life without charges while denying you access to a lawyer. if you are concerned about the state of our monetary and political systems, please educate yourself and those you know outside mass media outlets. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
37. RE: Reduce the shocking National Debt of 600 Billion
Oct 25 2009, 10:43 AM EDT
Absolutely right 58.107.38.156, may I call you "58 from Melbourne"?0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Sympneology |
38. RE: Reduce the shocking National Debt of 600 Billion
Oct 25 2009, 12:19 PM EDT
| Post edited: Oct 25 2009, 12:20 PM EDT
"It is not an issue of who the money is owed to but that it is owed at all. We would not have a national debt if the government maintained control of money creation i.e. through the mint. Instead they have sold out to the World Bank and installed the Federal Reserve. The Fed is able to create an unlimited amount of money out of thin air, through credit rather than paper. This means banks are able to lend and collect interest on money that does not even exist.You seem to want to have it both ways. You say, "the Fed is able to create an unlimited amount of money" and then say, "there simply is not enough money in the world to pay back all the debt". Money = Power. Whoever controls the money supply controls the people, and so long as the people are kept in ignorance of the way the banks control their lives, the situation will continue. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
39. RE: Reduce the shocking National Debt of 600 Billion
Oct 25 2009, 9:56 PM EDT
"You seem to want to have it both ways. You say, "the Fed is able to create an unlimited amount of money" and then say, "there simply is not enough money in the world to pay back all the debt".I agree with both of you. However, The anonymous person you refer to here Symph, when you say "you want it both ways" I think is merely pointing out that "under the present system of control" THEY - the controllers - have it both ways: They are able to create an unlimited amount of money, yet they perpetuate the idea that it is somehow 'physically' limited. This is correct ONLY in that it is limited by policy. What is physically possible is no longer reflected by what is financially possible. The policy is now one of maintaining power over the people in order to keep them in relative poverty. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |