Australian Politics Forum - The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48250
Gender: male

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #45 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:16pm

[color=#00ffff][/color]0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:29pm:

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:19pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 11:28am:

Does the "extra" spending take into account the lower spending by whoever is paying for the increase?

It seems like a very detailed report so it most likely does.

The positive attitude of the Governor of the Reserve Bank toward an increase also indicates an overall benefit for the economy!

What positive attitude?

His suggestion that increasing Newstart would be good for the economy, was reported in the news six months or more ago. He stated this at a time when Scott Morrison's Government was pushing hard against any increase.

Quote:

Speaking at an event in Adelaide, Philip Lowe said “very low” household income growth was the reason the economy had “softened”, which has prompted the RBA to reduce interest rates to a record low of 1.25%.

Asked for his view on the role of income support levels, Lowe suggested an increase to the $277.85-a-week payment would help stimulate the economy, though it was “a matter for the government”.

“Anything at the moment that can boost income growth is good for the economy,” he said. “So the interest rate cuts will boost household disposable income because people pay a lot of interest, and I hope the tax rebates get through the parliament and that will boost income.

“And perhaps, in time, stronger support payments for unemployed people will help as well but that’s up to the government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/21/reserve-bank-governor-sug...

Cut the taxes of productive people.
That would boost the economy a lot more.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49469
At my desk.

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #46 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:31pm

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:07pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 12:10pm:

So the whole basis of the "economic case" is that Australians as a whole would save and invest less, instead giving money to people who will spend everything they get?

It's basic Keynesian economics. The way to grow the economy is to increase the demand-side of economics among the low-income and middle-income earners.

Money put into savings and investment doesn't increase demand for goods and services in same way as giving money to low-income and middle-income earners does.

Your view of economics seems to be supply-side economics, which has been debunked since Reagan and Thatcher tried to implement it decades ago and failed spectacularly.

I haven't told you what my view is. I just spent two pages trying to figure out what this "argument" is.

So now that the economic "argument" seems pretty well laid out, what do you make of it's merit?

It's crap. Someone mentioned Keynesian economics, but that proposes artificially reducing consumer spending just as often as artificially increasing it, and is the wrong target group anyway. It would hardly be "fair" to raise and lower welfare rather than say, interest rates, to try to control economic cycles. If they deliberately left that bit out of the argument, then it is deceptive.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

0ktema Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 674	Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart Reply #47 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:32pm Frank wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:48pm: Paying people who could but do not work boosts the economy and creates jobs. With that 'logic' we should ALL stop working. Thank you, for that profound piece of logical work Frank. It's something to ponder when nuances of reality become too tiring.
Back to top	"We Are Consciousness Itself" - Adi Da Samraj IP Logged

0ktema

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 674

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #48 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 3:35pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:31pm:

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:07pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 12:10pm:

So the whole basis of the "economic case" is that Australians as a whole would save and invest less, instead giving money to people who will spend everything they get?

It's basic Keynesian economics. The way to grow the economy is to increase the demand-side of economics among the low-income and middle-income earners.

Money put into savings and investment doesn't increase demand for goods and services in same way as giving money to low-income and middle-income earners does.

Your view of economics seems to be supply-side economics, which has been debunked since Reagan and Thatcher tried to implement it decades ago and failed spectacularly.

I haven't told you what my view is. I just spent two pages trying to figure out what this "argument" is.

So now that the economic "argument" seems pretty well laid out, what do you make of it's merit?

It's crap. Someone mentioned Keynesian economics, but that proposes artificially reducing consumer spending just as often as artificially increasing it, and is the wrong target group anyway. It would hardly be "fair" to raise and lower welfare rather than say, interest rates, to try to control economic cycles. If they deliberately left that bit out of the argument, then it is deceptive.

Beyond it's crap, I'm not completely clear on what your intending to say here.

Knowing who the "they" is that your referring to would help.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 4^th, 2020 at 4:32pm by 0ktema »

"We Are Consciousness Itself"

- Adi Da Samraj

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48250
Gender: male

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #49 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 5:15pm

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:32pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:48pm:

Paying people who could but do not work boosts the economy and creates jobs. With that 'logic' we should ALL stop working.

Thank you, for that profound piece of logical work Frank.

It's something to ponder when nuances of reality become too tiring.

It's the thrust (if that's not too active and vigorous a metaphor for its argument) of your OP.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49469
At my desk.

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #50 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 7:33pm

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 3:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:31pm:

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:07pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 12:10pm:

So the whole basis of the "economic case" is that Australians as a whole would save and invest less, instead giving money to people who will spend everything they get?

It's basic Keynesian economics. The way to grow the economy is to increase the demand-side of economics among the low-income and middle-income earners.

Money put into savings and investment doesn't increase demand for goods and services in same way as giving money to low-income and middle-income earners does.

Your view of economics seems to be supply-side economics, which has been debunked since Reagan and Thatcher tried to implement it decades ago and failed spectacularly.

I haven't told you what my view is. I just spent two pages trying to figure out what this "argument" is.

So now that the economic "argument" seems pretty well laid out, what do you make of it's merit?

It's crap. Someone mentioned Keynesian economics, but that proposes artificially reducing consumer spending just as often as artificially increasing it, and is the wrong target group anyway. It would hardly be "fair" to raise and lower welfare rather than say, interest rates, to try to control economic cycles. If they deliberately left that bit out of the argument, then it is deceptive.

Beyond it's crap, I'm not completely clear on what your intending to say here.

Knowing who the "they" is that your referring to would help.

Whoever is making the argument.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

0ktema

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 674

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #51 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:22pm

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 7:33pm:

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 3:35pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:31pm:

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:32pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:07pm:

Auggie wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:04pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 12:10pm:

So the whole basis of the "economic case" is that Australians as a whole would save and invest less, instead giving money to people who will spend everything they get?

It's basic Keynesian economics. The way to grow the economy is to increase the demand-side of economics among the low-income and middle-income earners.

Money put into savings and investment doesn't increase demand for goods and services in same way as giving money to low-income and middle-income earners does.

Your view of economics seems to be supply-side economics, which has been debunked since Reagan and Thatcher tried to implement it decades ago and failed spectacularly.

I haven't told you what my view is. I just spent two pages trying to figure out what this "argument" is.

So now that the economic "argument" seems pretty well laid out, what do you make of it's merit?

It's crap. Someone mentioned Keynesian economics, but that proposes artificially reducing consumer spending just as often as artificially increasing it, and is the wrong target group anyway. It would hardly be "fair" to raise and lower welfare rather than say, interest rates, to try to control economic cycles. If they deliberately left that bit out of the argument, then it is deceptive.

Beyond it's crap, I'm not completely clear on what your intending to say here.

Knowing who the "they" is that your referring to would help.

Whoever is making the argument.

OK.

Now from what I can make out, your saying that consumers are the wrong target group to focus on for boosting the economy?

And anyone who purposefully doesn't include something about the alternative of using interest rates as a lever, are being deceptive in their argument, and it's not fair to focus on merely one area or group.

Is that anywhere near what your saying?

Honestly, that post of yours is hard work to make sense of!

Back to top

"We Are Consciousness Itself"

- Adi Da Samraj

IP Logged

0ktema

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 674

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #52 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:46pm

Frank wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 5:15pm:

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:32pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:48pm:

Paying people who could but do not work boosts the economy and creates jobs. With that 'logic' we should ALL stop working.

Thank you, for that profound piece of logical work Frank.

It's something to ponder when nuances of reality become too tiring.

It's the thrust (if that's not too active and vigorous a metaphor for its argument) of your OP.

Really, I don't get the point of arguments to absurdity, like the one you served up. They can never truly forward the contest of ideas.

By the way the OP was whiteknight. Wink

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:53pm by 0ktema »

"We Are Consciousness Itself"

- Adi Da Samraj

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16644
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #53 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:52pm

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:46pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 5:15pm:

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 2:32pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 1:48pm:

Paying people who could but do not work boosts the economy and creates jobs. With that 'logic' we should ALL stop working.

Thank you, for that profound piece of logical work Frank.

It's something to ponder when nuances of reality become too tiring.

It's the thrust (if that's not too active and vigorous a metaphor for its argument) of your OP.

I really don't get the point of arguments to absurdity, like the one you served up.

By the way the OP was whiteknight. Wink

Quote:

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It's been used a couple of times in thread.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 48250 Gender:	Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart Reply #54 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:53pm I actually think the dole should be administered by local government, out of local rate payers' money. Local people helping local people. Much better.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

0ktema Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 674	Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart Reply #55 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:58pm Interesting! What do you see as the key benefits of that Frank?
Back to top	"We Are Consciousness Itself" - Adi Da Samraj IP Logged

Setanta Gold Member Offline \/ Peace man! Posts: 16644 Northern NSW Gender:	Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart Reply #56 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:04pm 0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:58pm: Interesting! What do you see as the key benefits of that Frank? Higher rates are a good thing?
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48250
Gender: male

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #57 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:08pm

0ktema wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 8:58pm:

Interesting!
What do you see as the key benefits of that Frank?

People would know who are getting the benefit they are paying. The bludgers would be weeded out and the deserving would have all the support they need.

Benefits would be allocated by their peers, people who actually know them.

Welfare should be a local community affair.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

0ktema Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 674	Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart Reply #58 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:19pm Creating a sense of community is important and I see something of where your coming from, but I also see a lot of perilous pitfalls. For one, area's of high unemployment would fall under great disadvantage, not unlike areas of the local government school system in the USA.
Back to top	"We Are Consciousness Itself" - Adi Da Samraj IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48250
Gender: male

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #59 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:29pm

Poor people look after each other. Charity drives consistently show that poorer peoples are more generous.

I'd rather trust people in my community to decide who is deserving of what than a faceless, remote bureaucrat to allocate benefits sight unseen. Very importantly, I want to know how my tax dollars are spent. I don't want to see drugged out lay-abouts in my community living on my taxes. I don't want to go to work so they don't have to.

I am happy to help the unfortunate and the deserving but I do not want to go to work and pay taxes so some lazy, opportunistic bum doesn't have to.

The current system has a lot of room to accommodate the opportunistic, lazy bums. Make it local.

We all want communities, after all, don't we? Let's have communities of obligations and responsibilities as well a communities of rights.

Two way. Not a lot to ask.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged