Australian Politics Forum - The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart

0ktema

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 674

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #60 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:34pm

Setanta wrote on 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?

Yeah it would be good. I imagine there would be a quite a few ratepayers who would love to have a ready focus for their anger and worldly frustrations and rejoice in being able to get the pitch forks out to stimulate the unemployed.

Nothing could go wrong! Wink

Back to top

"We Are Consciousness Itself"

- Adi Da Samraj

IP Logged

whiteknight Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 8362 melbourne Gender:	Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart Reply #61 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:36pm When will the unemployed ever get a fair and just increase?.
Back to top	IP Logged

0ktema

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 674

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #62 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:50pm

Frank wrote on 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.

Good sentiments Frank, though with today's world being so complicated and human nature being the way it is, I think it would be very difficult to make workable.

Perhaps if we have more free time in our lives we will be able to build more endearing and enduring communities.

I have some hope that once we crack the cheap energy conundrum, with the help of Technology and advances in AI, we could reduce working hours and have more time to serve and care for each other.

Until then keeping society relatively stable will probably remain a growing task for governments around the world.

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 #63 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:56pm

whiteknight wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:36pm:

When will the unemployed ever get a fair and just increase?. Sad

Perhaps when someone can fully decipher this post of freediver's - trying to literally gave me a headache!

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

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

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

"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 #64 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:58pm

I am for taking as much out of the remote government's hands as possible and putting them into the hands of people on the ground = local governments. People would be much more involved if they had a stake in the way their money and goodwill is spent.

Dole, age care, disability pension, looking after the elderly, etc. We live our lives with other people. Governments tend to rob us of community.

Local people making local decisions. Not hard.

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 #65 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 10:30pm

0ktema wrote on 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!

I'm saying that half the time, Keynsianism says that boosting the economy this way is a bad thing. Suggesting that this is a good Keynesian lever also carries the apparently hidden suggestion that starving these people is a good way to reel in the economy when Keyensianism dictates that it needs to be reeled in. But they left that bit out. That's what the "wrong target group" thing is about. Better to choke off the supply of home loans and business loans than choke off the supply of food to unemployed people. After all, they typically end up eating anyway.

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 #66 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 11:22pm

@frediver

Yeah sorry, I'm not greatly educated on the intricacies of economic theory, much of it seems to be driven by ideology rather than human need or common sense.

That being said, I've found some of Professor Steve Keen's views on the economy to be interesting.

Anyway, even if you feel the economic argument holds no merit, I guess that doesn't mean that you necessarily think increasing the newstart rate in and of itself holds no merit.

You can appear quite abstruse at times, so I'm attempting to read between the lines. Wink

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 5^th, 2020 at 7:51am by 0ktema »

"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 #67 - Jan 4^th, 2020 at 11:32pm

Frank wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:58pm:

I am for taking as much out of the remote government's hands as possible and putting them into the hands of people on the ground = local governments. People would be much more involved if they had a stake in the way their money and goodwill is spent.

Dole, age care, disability pension, looking after the elderly, etc. We live our lives with other people. Governments tend to rob us of community.

Local people making local decisions. Not hard.

I can definitely see a lot of value in what you are saying there Frank. Still I think we will need more free time to make that sort of vision really workable.

If people can start getting off the hamster wheel, perhaps we could then step toward a future with greater local autonomy, where the higher levels of government run smoothly and unobtrusively.

I think your right, to a significant degree governments can tend to rob us of community. I would add that corporate greed is increasingly robbing us of our time, environment, individuality and increasingly our freedom (I think I just heard William Wallace call out lol).

Reining in our slavery to consumerism and predatory capitalism and once again creating things that last, things of value that can readily be passed on to the grandchildren - getting beyond the need to constantly feed the ceaseless corporate hunger machine would indeed be a blessing.

Well, while we have vision we have hope, I guess!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 4^th, 2020 at 11:39pm 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 #68 - Jan 5^th, 2020 at 12:02am

Frank wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 9:58pm:

I am for taking as much out of the remote government's hands as possible and putting them into the hands of people on the ground = local governments. People would be much more involved if they had a stake in the way their money and goodwill is spent.

Dole, age care, disability pension, looking after the elderly, etc. We live our lives with other people. Governments tend to rob us of community.

Local people making local decisions. Not hard.

What would happen when people moved from one local govt area to another? To another state? You can't know everyone in your local area anyway. Wishful and fanciful thinking with not enough thought behind it, much like Auggie does.

Back to top

IP Logged

0ktema Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 674	Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart Reply #69 - Jan 5^th, 2020 at 7:05am @Setanta There I was trying hard to go softly softly with Frank's bubble, putting considerable time and effort into the creation of some sort of visionary balloon animal and then you popped it! Yeah, I was acting with the hope that he might be inspired to expand his vision.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jan 5^th, 2020 at 12:12pm by 0ktema » "We Are Consciousness Itself" - Adi Da Samraj IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #70 - Jan 5^th, 2020 at 11:23am

Frank wrote on 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.

So, a local community consists of 99% religious nuts, and the remaning 1% is a gay person who needs charity. The 99% refuse to give that person their charity because of their sexual orientation. That hardly seems fair.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #71 - Jan 5^th, 2020 at 11:25am

Frank wrote on 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.

Better to have the lazy, drugged up bum sleeping all day, rather than having them shoot kids or rob stores.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #72 - Jan 5^th, 2020 at 11:39am

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 10:30pm:

0ktema wrote on 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!

I'm saying that half the time, Keynsianism says that boosting the economy this way is a bad thing. Suggesting that this is a good Keynesian lever also carries the apparently hidden suggestion that starving these people is a good way to reel in the economy when Keyensianism dictates that it needs to be reeled in. But they left that bit out. That's what the "wrong target group" thing is about. Better to choke off the supply of home loans and business loans than choke off the supply of food to unemployed people. After all, they typically end up eating anyway.

Keynesian economics state that the government has to intervene in order to increase consumer spending to drive demand for goods and services. Providing low-income earners with more disposable income would achieve this goal. It seeks to create a 'trickle-up' economy.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 48250
Gender: male

Re: The Strong Economic Case For Increasing Newstart
Reply #73 - Jan 5^th, 2020 at 12:14pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2020 at 11:39am:

Keynesian economics state that the government has to intervene in order to increase consumer spending to drive demand for goods and services. Providing low-income earners with more disposable income would achieve this goal. It seeks to create a 'trickle-up' economy.

And who is going to earn/produce that extra money?

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 #74 - Jan 5^th, 2020 at 3:15pm

Auggie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2020 at 11:39am:

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2020 at 10:30pm:

0ktema wrote on 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!

I'm saying that half the time, Keynsianism says that boosting the economy this way is a bad thing. Suggesting that this is a good Keynesian lever also carries the apparently hidden suggestion that starving these people is a good way to reel in the economy when Keyensianism dictates that it needs to be reeled in. But they left that bit out. That's what the "wrong target group" thing is about. Better to choke off the supply of home loans and business loans than choke off the supply of food to unemployed people. After all, they typically end up eating anyway.

Keynesian economics state that the government has to intervene in order to increase consumer spending to drive demand for goods and services. Providing low-income earners with more disposable income would achieve this goal. It seeks to create a 'trickle-up' economy.

No it doesn't.

Back to top

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

IP Logged