The Economy

bigclock wrote:The government should ban outsourcing jobs and ban importing cheaper products. Force the Australian people to buy only Australian produced has worked wonders for Cuba.

A Communist Australia? I like it!

bigclock wrote:The government should ban outsourcing jobs and ban importing cheaper products. Force the Australian people to buy only Australian produced has worked wonders for Cuba.

Force Australian people to by only Australian produced products This has all the hallmarks of a commie regime, leave me out of that, I think we all should be forced to support Collingwood, vomit, vomit ,vomit.

Collingwood? ah, the quintessential Communist environment.
Comrade Eddie? Has a ring to it, do you think?

I think the horse has bolted in many ways on the "buying Australian" mantra. Our economy is now so dependent on SE Asia and China, that I doubt we could now properly function without import and export in those regions.

I think you can't be in the big league with the flow only going in one direction.

This doesn't make it a level playing field, but either we want to play internationally or not.

As for our Government trading with offshore companies ahead of Aussie ones, well even that is a two way street.

Can provide examples if you want them.

But, what it shows is that the rules of engagement are now not so straight forward and we are a very compromised nation when it comes to international trade. Compromised from the perspective of purist economic ethos.

Think Australia's debt is a worry?

Challenge for those who do. Have a look at this and discuss:

https://twitter.com/kpgriffin/status/260223980575813633/photo/1

Moody's rating agency:

"We are very comfortable with Australia's triple A ratings because of the government's very low debt levels compared with other sovereigns in the triple A category," Steven Hess, a senior vice president at Moody's in New York, told Reuters in a telephone interview on Wednesday.

The resource-rich country is one of just 10 nations with a top-notch rating and stable outlook from Moody's.

To the envy of many Western nations, Australia's net debt is expected to be 9.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2012/13, a fraction of that of Japan or Europe.Meanwhile The Daily Telegraph (Murdoch) is running a deceitful Tea Party style 'debt too high' campaign.

well the debt is far too high after hearing both Swan and Jules telling me and everyone else about a budget surplus!

In that case, TE, do you prefer raised taxes or mass sackings.

It's one or the other.

Can't reduce debt any other way.

An interesting discussion about debt here, especially considering the problems debt caused in the world economy in very recent history. Have we already forgotten that problem, or do we just ignore history and allow ourselves to repeat it?
So, the recent posts say that Australia's debt is 9.2% of our GDP and the argument appears to be that it is not a problem because that debt is a fraction of that of other countries.

Let's simplify it in 2 ways:

1. Someone smokes 9.2 cigarettes per day instead of the 150 cigarettes that someone else smokes per day. We are perfectly healthy because they smoke 150 per day and we dont?
2. Was the debt of these other countries ever 9.2% of GDP? I think so? These countries must have done nothing, or not enough, about their debt problem.

So, to the question: "Do you prefer raised taxes or mass sackings. It's one or the other. Can't reduce debt any other way."

Is your suggestion: we do nothing?

No, my suggestion is that, like most of us, to balance some debt with maintaining low unemployment and economic growth.

TD, I'd also suggest that the debt and cigarette analogy isn't valid. Cigarettes have no community value.

the sackings is only beneficial if those people are sitting in the Transit Lounge

redandblack wrote:No, my suggestion is that, like most of us, to balance some debt with maintaining low unemployment and economic growth.

TD, I'd also suggest that the debt and cigarette analogy isn't valid. Cigarettes have no community value.

Well, I disagree, and cigarettes having no community value has no relevance at all.
My point is saying our debt levels are OK because others have more is not a valid argument.
They would have had our debt level once and didn't control it then because they either chose not to, or couldn't.
This is the nature of debt, and using forward projections of new revenue to justify increased spending levels is a clear sign that someone has been lured into the debt honeypot.
How many of us decide to increase our debt because we hope to get a pay rise?

That's fine, TD, but the effect of not having some debt during the GFC would have undoubtedly meant much higher unemployment.

Because of the GFC, taxation revenue has been well down, The current government is a relatively low-taxing operation, currently at about 23% of GDP, much lower than the Howard government.

The GFC meant that investors weren't making much money to be taxed on and certainly weren't making capital gains, further reducing tax collections. Not only that, but the carry forward capital losses dampened tax receipts in following years as well.

We have seen in Europe the effect of austerity. It leads to very high unemployment and depressed growth, leading to recession.

The Australian dollar is today at record highs. This is the measure of how the world judges a country's financial backing, no matter how some might concentrate on low debt levels as being evil.

As I said, you either have to raise taxes or sack people. Which is it?

As for your cigarette analogy, I feel you dismissed that rather summarily. I don't think it's a proper comparison at all.

Amazing, you summarily dismiss my analogy and then accuse me of doing it.

Is this not a clarification: "My point is saying our debt levels are OK because others have more is not a valid argument."

Perhaps stick to "playing the ball" as you continually demand others do

Perhaps you could make one post without making it personal.

I gave a detailed reply.

As you are a lawyer, perhaps you should read my posts a little more thoroughly and not take the worst possible interpretation each time.

I said I didn't think your analogy was correct. That is not a summary dismissal, no matter how you spin it.

As for 'not playing the ball', so far you have called me snide and supercilious. Perhaps you could let me know specifically where I have insulted you similarly?

Site rules ask that you debate the topic, not the poster. Please keep to that.

Unbelievable

redandblack wrote:Perhaps you could make one post without making it personal.

I gave a detailed reply.

As you are a lawyer, perhaps you should read my posts a little more thoroughly and not take the worst possible interpretation each time.

I said I didn't think your analogy was correct. That is not a summary dismissal, no matter how you spin it.

As for 'not playing the ball', so far you have called me snide and supercilious. Perhaps you could let me know specifically where I have insulted you similarly?

Site rules ask that you debate the topic, not the poster. Please keep to that.

Nothing like double standards and contradictions to slam home your point.

Staying personal, can't show where I've abused you and have no answer to my detailed reply about the economy.

I would have quite happily responded to your detailed reply which is on subject, but it is the continual provocation stapled on the end of every comment that is frustrating

As for your cigarette analogy, I feel you dismissed that rather summarily. I don't think it's a proper comparison at all.

Let me repeat myself so you stay on subject:

Cigarettes having no community value has no relevance at all. My point is saying our debt levels are OK because others have more is not a valid argument.

Other countries are where they are because they allowed their debt to blow out and must now take austerity measures. At what point do we realise that we are following in their shoes and address the issue?

Raise taxes or cut our spending? How about both? You dont need mass sackings to cut spending. That is a well used scare campaign. "How many police, nurses and firemen do you want to lose?" as if that is all they spend money on.

I am afaid TD you are losing us average people in the courtroom debate of tripping up posters on specific issues.

If this is supposed to be a points scoring match between yourself and R&B, then please say so, so I can tune out.

If it is supposed to be a debate on the state of the economy then I might be interested to keep following.

Yes it takes 2 to tango, but I am afraid you are losing me.

personally i don't care about the economy, i'm happy if i get food on the table & back a few winners over the weekend

Hope you backed the free-scoring Bloods, Bayman

redandblack wrote:Hope you backed the free-scoring Bloods, Bayman

i took a multi with West, Norwood & Eagles all to win for a $236.54 result

two down one to go

without any disrespect BM, I do hope you don't collect.
However, that isn't a half bad bet all the same.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:without any disrespect BM, I do hope you don't collect.
However, that isn't a half bad bet all the same.

no disrespect taken, i would surely hope you'd want your team to win

it was
Norwood $1.28
West $1.65
Eagles $1.40

equals $2.95 bet

for those that don't understand you multiply the odds & that's the dividend including the $1.00 invested

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:I am afaid TD you are losing us average people in the courtroom debate of tripping up posters on specific issues.

If this is supposed to be a points scoring match between yourself and R&B, then please say so, so I can tune out.

If it is supposed to be a debate on the state of the economy then I might be interested to keep following.

Yes it takes 2 to tango, but I am afraid you are losing me.

Quite happy to add to the debate Chambo which my original post was trying to do.

An interesting discussion about debt here, especially considering the problems debt caused in the world economy in very recent history. Have we already forgotten that problem, or do we just ignore history and allow ourselves to repeat it?
So, the recent posts say that Australia's debt is 9.2% of our GDP and the argument appears to be that it is not a problem because that debt is a fraction of that of other countries.

Let's simplify it in 2 ways:

1. Someone smokes 9.2 cigarettes per day instead of the 150 cigarettes that someone else smokes per day. We are perfectly healthy because they smoke 150 per day and we dont? My point is I do not agree with the argument that our debt levels are OK simply because other countries have more debt.
2. Was the debt of these other countries ever 9.2% of GDP? I think so? These countries must have done nothing, or not enough, about their debt problem. Other countries are where they are because they allowed their debt to blow out and must now take austerity measures when they should be spending. At what point do we realise that we are following in their shoes and address the issue?

I do not agree with incurring unchecked debt. I do not agree with spending money now, based upon forward projections of new income. Let's earn it before we spend it. Are not the Mining Tax and Olympic Dam expansion good examples of how this procedure flawed? How long before we max out this credit card and have to get a new one to spend more including having to pay the interest on the original?

So, to the question: "Do you prefer raised taxes or mass sackings. It's one or the other. Can't reduce debt any other way." You dont need mass sackings to cut spending. That argument is used by both sides to avoid the necessary cuts to spending. I think most people, especially South Australians, have wised up to that little scam.

Purely my opinion of course, and I do concede that I don't particularly like debt.