The Politics Thread 2020

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6370
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by papabear »

Northern Raider wrote: September 2, 2020, 7:06 pm
gangrenous wrote: September 2, 2020, 6:22 pm
Northern Raider wrote: You might take that approach but many wouldn't. Hence it's a compulsory addition to base pay.
Disagree
Northern Raider wrote: Bottom line is people can't be trusted to put money aside for their own future.
Agree
The point you disagree with. Do you think all employers would channel that money back into wages if it wasn't compulsory?
I think in most you would be pretty much compelled to.

If anything a lot of people miss out on cash from super not being paid when company's go under whilst if the director is forced to pay the money upfront then the employee doesnt miss out on that money the company might just go kaput a bit quicker.

In my space, people have an idea as to what they are worth and the negotiation happens from that point, I would say the same for every office / trade / construction type job. The only space I can see people taking advantage is the spaces dominated by migrant workers and such were people dont know their value or bargaining position but in these spaces its likely the director (if he was going to rip them off) is probably ripping them off as it is and not paying there super anyways.

Additionally from an economics standpoint it is a government interference on a free market allocating the most important of resources being labour. I am yet to be persuaded that the interference is worthwhile and I continually see examples where it is not.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26112
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Northern Raider »

papabear wrote: September 3, 2020, 9:29 am
Northern Raider wrote: September 2, 2020, 7:06 pm
gangrenous wrote: September 2, 2020, 6:22 pm
Northern Raider wrote: You might take that approach but many wouldn't. Hence it's a compulsory addition to base pay.
Disagree
Northern Raider wrote: Bottom line is people can't be trusted to put money aside for their own future.
Agree
The point you disagree with. Do you think all employers would channel that money back into wages if it wasn't compulsory?
I think in most you would be pretty much compelled to.

If anything a lot of people miss out on cash from super not being paid when company's go under whilst if the director is forced to pay the money upfront then the employee doesnt miss out on that money the company might just go kaput a bit quicker.

In my space, people have an idea as to what they are worth and the negotiation happens from that point, I would say the same for every office / trade / construction type job. The only space I can see people taking advantage is the spaces dominated by migrant workers and such were people dont know their value or bargaining position but in these spaces its likely the director (if he was going to rip them off) is probably ripping them off as it is and not paying there super anyways.

Additionally from an economics standpoint it is a government interference on a free market allocating the most important of resources being labour. I am yet to be persuaded that the interference is worthwhile and I continually see examples where it is not.
That's reasonable and I don't necessarily disagree. That approach is highly problematic however due to my 2nd point. Making Super contributions optional for the individual would be a catastrophe. You are trusting people to take that extra money and make sound investments to help fund their retirement. I can only speculate what % of people would do that responsibly but my guess would be a disturbingly low number. That would place an incredible burden everybody else to support those that didn't.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6370
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by papabear »

Northern Raider wrote: September 3, 2020, 10:36 am
papabear wrote: September 3, 2020, 9:29 am
Northern Raider wrote: September 2, 2020, 7:06 pm
gangrenous wrote: September 2, 2020, 6:22 pm
Northern Raider wrote: You might take that approach but many wouldn't. Hence it's a compulsory addition to base pay.
Disagree
Northern Raider wrote: Bottom line is people can't be trusted to put money aside for their own future.
Agree
The point you disagree with. Do you think all employers would channel that money back into wages if it wasn't compulsory?
I think in most you would be pretty much compelled to.

If anything a lot of people miss out on cash from super not being paid when company's go under whilst if the director is forced to pay the money upfront then the employee doesnt miss out on that money the company might just go kaput a bit quicker.

In my space, people have an idea as to what they are worth and the negotiation happens from that point, I would say the same for every office / trade / construction type job. The only space I can see people taking advantage is the spaces dominated by migrant workers and such were people dont know their value or bargaining position but in these spaces its likely the director (if he was going to rip them off) is probably ripping them off as it is and not paying there super anyways.

Additionally from an economics standpoint it is a government interference on a free market allocating the most important of resources being labour. I am yet to be persuaded that the interference is worthwhile and I continually see examples where it is not.
That's reasonable and I don't necessarily disagree. That approach is highly problematic however due to my 2nd point. Making Super contributions optional for the individual would be a catastrophe. You are trusting people to take that extra money and make sound investments to help fund their retirement. I can only speculate what % of people would do that responsibly but my guess would be a disturbingly low number. That would place an incredible burden everybody else to support those that didn't.
If you opt in to super, your super is paid to your super fund (ie those that opt in have the same control / sound investment decisions as before) in my utopia!@! :P I wouldnt worry to much its never going to happen. As managing super funds and the admin from them is a massive business with a lot of power in the halls of power.
User avatar
gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8549
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by gergreg »

Not completely sure of the accuracy but over the past few days I've seen reports that the majority of people who have recently drawn from their super funds have spent it on discretionary items like alcohol and cigarettes.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 45155
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by The Nickman »

gergreg wrote: September 3, 2020, 5:22 pm Not completely sure of the accuracy but over the past few days I've seen reports that the majority of people who have recently drawn from their super funds have spent it on discretionary items like alcohol and cigarettes.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Leave me out of this discussion, ****.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
User avatar
BJ
Jason Croker
Posts: 4689
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by BJ »

The Nickman wrote:
gergreg wrote: September 3, 2020, 5:22 pm Not completely sure of the accuracy but over the past few days I've seen reports that the majority of people who have recently drawn from their super funds have spent it on discretionary items like alcohol and cigarettes.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Leave me out of this discussion, ****.

There is no way they can technically tell what people spent their Superannuation draw down on so I’m dubious of these claims.

I’m sure people spent either their pay, jobkeeper, super etc on those items. But I don’t know how to tell which money was used. It’s not like you can redirect your super into your alcohol and cigarette funds and your other money into your rent, mortgage or food bill.
User avatar
gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8549
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by gergreg »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.co ... 55dm3.html

https://www.eisuper.com.au/covid19/are- ... -unwisely/

Like I said above I'm not sure of the accuracy of these reports but it is an indication of what would happen if superannuation wasn't compulsory. Historically people weren't saving adequately for retirement either.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
BJ
Jason Croker
Posts: 4689
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by BJ »

Yep. These figures are based on very limited surveys or information published by superannuation companies that are not happy that so many people have withdrawn funds from them. (Bad for executive bonuses).

There is no data connecting the financial supply chain directly from Super payout to discretionary expenditure.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26112
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Northern Raider »

BJ wrote: September 3, 2020, 6:06 pm
The Nickman wrote:
gergreg wrote: September 3, 2020, 5:22 pm Not completely sure of the accuracy but over the past few days I've seen reports that the majority of people who have recently drawn from their super funds have spent it on discretionary items like alcohol and cigarettes.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Leave me out of this discussion, ****.

There is no way they can technically tell what people spent their Superannuation draw down on so I’m dubious of these claims.

I’m sure people spent either their pay, jobkeeper, super etc on those items. But I don’t know how to tell which money was used. It’s not like you can redirect your super into your alcohol and cigarette funds and your other money into your rent, mortgage or food bill.
I drew down on my Super and bought a case of Grange. The balance I bet on Washington Generals to win next start.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8549
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by gergreg »

I'm not passing judgement on what people spent money on but it is interesting that the spike in spending occurs at the same time as stimulus and access to super in the SMH article. However looking at the context it mentions that the mean is 100 and the period between the spikes drops below the mean.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
Sterlk
David Furner
Posts: 3068
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Sterlk »

People can rail against Super all they like, but the pure and simple fact of the matter is that if we didn't have it, millions upon millions of Australians would have no or paltry retirement funds.

In 2019, approximately 13.4 million Australians didn't have enough savings to support themselves through 3mths of joblessness. People live paycheck to paycheck, and expenses tend to grow to match income.

There'll always be a segment of the population that has financial savvy and knows how to manage money, but if you don't cater for the hordes who don't manage their finances wisely, the whole damn thing would fall to pieces.
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132511
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by greeneyed »

Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 11:04 am
greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
You should think of money as just a tool of exchange, which governments manage.

The real economy is created by work and output. That enables people to consume and invest. Governments also produce outputs (and engage in transfers) by taxing various parts of the real economy.

Before money, people worked to produce what they needed to live and bartered goods. There was still a real economy... production and consumption or investment create value. But money allow for a more sophisticated economy, with specialisation of work... and governments manage (print and mint) it to provide certainty. You won’t need actual money at all, probably, in the future. It’ll be all electronic... but the financial system works because of the rules, framework and certainty government provides.

Transfers like pensions, simply redistribute incomes among the population. Taxpayer funded pensions are transfers from the current working population to those who are not. Pensions funded by superannuation are effectively deferred consumption of income generated by the individual (ignoring the tax concessions for superannuation).

Hope that helps!
Image
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

greeneyed wrote: September 4, 2020, 12:22 pm
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 11:04 am
greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
You should think of money as just a tool of exchange, which governments manage.

The real economy is created by work and output. That enables people to consume and invest. Governments also produce outputs (and engage in transfers) by taxing various parts of the real economy.

Before money, people worked to produce what they needed to live and bartered goods. There was still a real economy... production and consumption or investment create value. But money allow for a more sophisticated economy, with specialisation of work... and governments manage (print and mint) it to provide certainty. You won’t need actual money at all, probably, in the future. It’ll be all electronic... but the financial system works because of the rules, framework and certainty government provides.

Transfers like pensions, simply redistribute incomes among the population. Taxpayer funded pensions are transfers from the current working population to those who are not. Pensions funded by superannuation are effectively deferred consumption of income generated by the individual (ignoring the tax concessions for superannuation).

Hope that helps!
With respect GE, you didn't answer my question.

If taxpayers fund the pension (or the military, or unemployment benefits or any other social spending), how do these taxpayers get the money to pay their taxes in the first place, considering the only issuer of the AUD is the federal government?
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132511
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by greeneyed »

Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 1:41 pm
greeneyed wrote: September 4, 2020, 12:22 pm
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 11:04 am
greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
You should think of money as just a tool of exchange, which governments manage.

The real economy is created by work and output. That enables people to consume and invest. Governments also produce outputs (and engage in transfers) by taxing various parts of the real economy.

Before money, people worked to produce what they needed to live and bartered goods. There was still a real economy... production and consumption or investment create value. But money allow for a more sophisticated economy, with specialisation of work... and governments manage (print and mint) it to provide certainty. You won’t need actual money at all, probably, in the future. It’ll be all electronic... but the financial system works because of the rules, framework and certainty government provides.

Transfers like pensions, simply redistribute incomes among the population. Taxpayer funded pensions are transfers from the current working population to those who are not. Pensions funded by superannuation are effectively deferred consumption of income generated by the individual (ignoring the tax concessions for superannuation).

Hope that helps!
With respect GE, you didn't answer my question.

If taxpayers fund the pension (or the military, or unemployment benefits or any other social spending), how do these taxpayers get the money to pay their taxes in the first place, considering the only issuer of the AUD is the federal government?
They work and produce. Production is the basis of real value in an economy. Money is just a standardised measure of value, which facilitates economic transactions. Governments can issue money, but it is worthless if there is not a substantive real economy to underpin it. You'll see in history how currencies collapse when the fundamental real economy is in disarray.
Image
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

greeneyed wrote: September 4, 2020, 4:47 pm
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 1:41 pm
greeneyed wrote: September 4, 2020, 12:22 pm
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 11:04 am
greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
You should think of money as just a tool of exchange, which governments manage.

The real economy is created by work and output. That enables people to consume and invest. Governments also produce outputs (and engage in transfers) by taxing various parts of the real economy.

Before money, people worked to produce what they needed to live and bartered goods. There was still a real economy... production and consumption or investment create value. But money allow for a more sophisticated economy, with specialisation of work... and governments manage (print and mint) it to provide certainty. You won’t need actual money at all, probably, in the future. It’ll be all electronic... but the financial system works because of the rules, framework and certainty government provides.

Transfers like pensions, simply redistribute incomes among the population. Taxpayer funded pensions are transfers from the current working population to those who are not. Pensions funded by superannuation are effectively deferred consumption of income generated by the individual (ignoring the tax concessions for superannuation).

Hope that helps!
With respect GE, you didn't answer my question.

If taxpayers fund the pension (or the military, or unemployment benefits or any other social spending), how do these taxpayers get the money to pay their taxes in the first place, considering the only issuer of the AUD is the federal government?
They work and produce. Production is the basis of real value in an economy. Money is just a standardised measure of value, which facilitates economic transactions. Governments can issue money, but it is worthless if there is not a substantive real economy to underpin it. You'll see in history how currencies collapse when the fundamental real economy is in disarray.
They work and produce? And how do the fruits of that labour (i.e AUD's) arrive in peoples banks accounts?

Keep in mind the postulate I presented earlier is not an opinion it is a fact - the ONLY way that money is created is through the RBA who create/issue money upon the instruction of Treasury.

I will get to the point so we don't keep going back and forth.

Despite a prevailing neoliberal myth that has played out over the last few decades and gobbled up by the (sometimes) well meaning but ignorant masses (thanks in large part to clowns like Thatcher, Abbott kicking it along) - taxpayers do not fund anything.

The government needs to spend money into existence before they can take back anything in taxes. To suggest otherwise can not be reconciled with the fact that if companies or private citizens try to create AUDs we go to the big house for counterfeiting. How can we pay taxes to the government without the money having being first SPENT into the non-government sector first? We can't.

It is a lot to digest when even intelligent people intuitively think of money in a fiat system the same way they think of personal or private business finance. We are constrained by our budgets. We cannot spend until we have the money in the bank or if we are happy to borrow and put ourselves at risk of default.

The Australian government on the other hand does not need to worry about any of this because it is the monopoly issuer of the Australian Dollars and any and all debts it has are denominated in AUD's. It does not need to worry about not being able to pay out a bond at maturity, because the RBA controls the spreadsheet.

The only thing that our government should be preoccupied when it spends is inflation and ensuring that our society has the real resources and infrastructure in place to cope with current and future demand.

When you cite the burden to future generations of an ageing population, respectfully, your lens is wrong. It isn't about ensuring that some arbitrary figures on an RBA spreadsheet don't pass a certain arbitrary amount ("cost to the taxpayer"), it is about ensuring that the productive capacity of our society can cope with a decrease in the amount of working and productive people in society. This is done through smart infrastructure, education, and investing to ensure that our future productive capacity is sound.
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
Fuifui Bradbrad
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6675
Joined: May 3, 2008, 10:23 pm
Favourite Player: Phil Graham
Location: Marsden Park

The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Fuifui Bradbrad »

Please stop presenting your postulates. It’s a family forum
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11321
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by gangrenous »

Mickey’s been spending lockdown slammin’ MMT videos on YouTube
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

gangrenous wrote: September 4, 2020, 5:54 pm Mickey’s been spending lockdown slammin’ MMT videos on YouTube
Is MMT that theory that says you can print money with no consequences? Heard about it in the daily telegraph and it seemed pretty crackpot to me.
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132511
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

The Politics Thread 2020

Post by greeneyed »

@Mickey... Governments don’t “spend” money into existence. Creating money supply isn’t a “real” transaction. Real value is created in an economy when people work and produce, so they can consume, save and invest. As I mentioned, that could happen without money (in primitive economies).

Taxpayers certainly fund public goods. They work and produce... they’re remunerated, but that remuneration reflects the value of their production. That allows people to consume or save... and pay their taxes. The real value is in their labour and output. The money paid... they’re simply financial transactions, which allow the real transactions to happen more efficiently.

Governments too produce real outputs, public goods. They can only fund it by taxing... which essentially forces the taxpayers to provide the public good (to be consumed by all for the greater benefit of society) rather than consume private goods. The social security system is all about transfers... it is simply redistributing income from one group to another. That doesn’t add to real outputs, though. You need real output of the economy to support the whole box and dice.

Sound monetary systems have to be supported by sound, productive economies... that is the real economy. There have been cases in history of unsound monetary systems... which resulted from governments “printing too much money”, with “too much money chasing too few goods”. That underlines the point... money only has value if there’s a sound real economy. Governments can only operate effectively if people believe there’s a sound tax base... of current and future taxpayers... to fund their operations. That depends ultimately on the real output of a country.

I don’t disagree with your ultimate conclusion... that an ageing population will require improvements in the productiveness of the economy, to cope with the declining share of the population who are working and producing. That might involve infrastructure, more flexible markets. But that’s probably not going to be enough... you need to make your public finances more sustainable. And compulsory superannuation will be one thing that helps, as it takes pressure off taxpayer funded pension systems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26112
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Northern Raider »

Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 6:07 pm
gangrenous wrote: September 4, 2020, 5:54 pm Mickey’s been spending lockdown slammin’ MMT videos on YouTube
Is MMT that theory that says you can print money with no consequences? Heard about it in the daily telegraph and it seemed pretty crackpot to me.
Didn't Zimbabwe try the print more money approach? Turned their currency into monopoly money. I've actually had my hands on one of those $1T notes.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

Northern Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 9:07 pm
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 6:07 pm
gangrenous wrote: September 4, 2020, 5:54 pm Mickey’s been spending lockdown slammin’ MMT videos on YouTube
Is MMT that theory that says you can print money with no consequences? Heard about it in the daily telegraph and it seemed pretty crackpot to me.
Didn't Zimbabwe try the print more money approach? Turned their currency into monopoly money. I've actually had my hands on one of those $1T notes.
Zimbabwe suffered hyperinflation through Mugabe and his cronyism. Installing all of his top military men into the agricultural sector despite the fact that they had no idea how to farm. Destroyed the agricultural output of an economy which was heavily reliant on this sector.

And all the while continuing to spend, despite the fact there were massive supply shocks. That is what caused the hyperinflation, not spending in and of itself.
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6370
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by papabear »

Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 11:04 am
greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
I take it you have watched money heist recently.
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

papabear wrote: September 9, 2020, 9:44 am
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 11:04 am
greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
I take it you have watched money heist recently.
No I haven’t. Never heard of it.

But I do enjoy when people presume that my education in macroeconomics must have come from some YouTube video :lol:
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6370
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by papabear »

Mickey_Raider wrote: September 9, 2020, 10:32 am
papabear wrote: September 9, 2020, 9:44 am
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 11:04 am
greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
I take it you have watched money heist recently.
No I haven’t. Never heard of it.

But I do enjoy when people presume that my education in macroeconomics must have come from some YouTube video :lol:
its a netflix series about a robbery of a mint, you should check it out, whether you find it educational or not its a great show.

I am sure you are a very educated and important man!
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

papabear wrote: September 9, 2020, 2:47 pm
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 9, 2020, 10:32 am
papabear wrote: September 9, 2020, 9:44 am
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 4, 2020, 11:04 am
greeneyed wrote: August 27, 2020, 7:29 pm Libertarianism isn’t really consistent with making superannuation optional, but giving everyone a pension. Because the universal pension is a massive imposition on taxpayers... it’s just a compulsory transfer of wealth from future to current taxpayers. It’s not sustainable when taxpayers are a shrinking proportion of the population.

Libertarians would logically argue for no government pension at all, alongside optional superannuation.

But that is not a society I’d like to live in.
GE I have two postulates for you followed by a question:

1. No one except the federal government can create Australian Dollars. If you or I try to create AUD's we get thrown in jail for counterfeiting.

2. Australian taxpayers must pay their taxes in AUD's. You can't pay them in USD or sea shells or loaves of bread.

So, considering the above, if taxpayers are the ones who fund social spending such as the pension; and no one except the Fed can create AUD's; where do taxpayers get the money in the first place in order to pay their taxes?
I take it you have watched money heist recently.
No I haven’t. Never heard of it.

But I do enjoy when people presume that my education in macroeconomics must have come from some YouTube video :lol:
its a netflix series about a robbery of a mint, you should check it out, whether you find it educational or not its a great show.

I am sure you are a very educated and important man!
haha shutup papa I was more referring to old mate earlier responding to my painstakingly fought essay with a jibe about spending lockdown guzzling youtube videos (in my mind that equates to quasi-conspiratorial videos).

I will check out the netflick.

In the meantime can you or someone actually respond to my question about how the non-gov sector manages to furnish itself with the funds to pay taxes?
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6370
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by papabear »

We use money already printed or issued..
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11321
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by gangrenous »

Mickey_Raider wrote: haha shutup papa I was more referring to old mate earlier responding to my painstakingly fought essay with a jibe about spending lockdown guzzling youtube videos (in my mind that equates to quasi-conspiratorial videos).
Image

In my defence when someone pops up out of nowhere with a lengthy diatribe in the politics thread of a football forum YouTube is probably a safer bet than Harvard Image
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

papabear wrote: September 9, 2020, 3:23 pm We use money already printed or issued..
Printed or issued by whom though?

Eventually anyone who gives the requisite amount of thought to the topic realises that governments must spend into the non-government sector before they can levy taxes from the same.

This is significant because it completely flies in the face of the counterfactual garbage you hear from neoclassical bots who claim that the government is financially constrained by the taxes they can bring in. Absolute ideological bollocks.

And a lot of people are starting to wise up to it...I just wish everyone would get a move on it is happening too slowly.
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132511
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by greeneyed »

Mickey_Raider wrote: September 9, 2020, 9:52 pm
papabear wrote: September 9, 2020, 3:23 pm We use money already printed or issued..
Printed or issued by whom though?

Eventually anyone who gives the requisite amount of thought to the topic realises that governments must spend into the non-government sector before they can levy taxes from the same.

This is significant because it completely flies in the face of the counterfactual garbage you hear from neoclassical bots who claim that the government is financially constrained by the taxes they can bring in. Absolute ideological bollocks.

And a lot of people are starting to wise up to it...I just wish everyone would get a move on it is happening too slowly.
I have tried to answer this before... The issue of currency is a financial, not a real economic transaction. Governments don't "spend" the money into existence. The ability of governments to tax is fundamentally based on production in the private sector. The government does actually spend, when it adds to production, by providing public goods (funded by the taxes).

Money is just a standard system of facilitating real transactions. It only has value because people are prepared to accept it in exchange for providing their labour or a good or service.

Governments obviously can spend more than they tax... by borrowing. But people are only going to be prepared to lend to governments if they believe that they can call on future tax and other revenues to repay. If debt levels get too high... those governments come crashing down. If financial systems are not supported by things of real value... real production, real assets... then they come crashing down too. It’s the real activity in the economy, people working, producing, that generate value.
Image
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

greeneyed wrote: September 9, 2020, 10:40 pm
Mickey_Raider wrote: September 9, 2020, 9:52 pm
papabear wrote: September 9, 2020, 3:23 pm We use money already printed or issued..
Printed or issued by whom though?

Eventually anyone who gives the requisite amount of thought to the topic realises that governments must spend into the non-government sector before they can levy taxes from the same.

This is significant because it completely flies in the face of the counterfactual garbage you hear from neoclassical bots who claim that the government is financially constrained by the taxes they can bring in. Absolute ideological bollocks.

And a lot of people are starting to wise up to it...I just wish everyone would get a move on it is happening too slowly.
I have tried to answer this before... The issue of currency is a financial, not a real economic transaction. Governments don't "spend" the money into existence. The ability of governments to tax is fundamentally based on production in the private sector. The government does actually spend, when it adds to production, by providing public goods (funded by the taxes).

Money is just a standard system of facilitating real transactions. It only has value because people are prepared to accept it in exchange for providing their labour or a good or service.

Governments obviously can spend more than they tax... by borrowing. But people are only going to be prepared to lend to governments if they believe that they can call on future tax and other revenues to repay. If debt levels get too high... those governments come crashing down. If financial systems are not supported by things of real value... real production, real assets... then they come crashing down too. It’s the real activity in the economy, people working, producing, that generate value.
Here is where an overwhelming number of people are confused. And I am actually convinced it is because people don't understand that the Reserve Bank of Australia is a government entity which creates money out of thin air.

Even if there was ever a point where the private sector wasn't gladly guzzling up interest bearing government bonds (hint: that day will not come because an Australian government bond is a risk free asset, the Australian government will not default the same way a company can), then the RBA is purchasing those Treasury bonds.

What's that you say? The RBA (a government entity which creates money on instruction from Treasury) purchasing Treasury bonds from Treasury?

If it sounds a little bit like the government taking money from its left pocket and putting it into its right pocket, that's because it is exactly what it is.

The government DOES NOT NEED to issue bonds. It can spend more than it taxes freely, without any constraints other than those imposed by inflation and the real resources at its disposal.

The truth is that, contrary to what many are led to believe, if the government stopped issuing bonds tomorrow, it would be the private financial sector who would start complaining, not the government. Go and look at the reaction from the big financial institutions when Costello was going to discontinue bond auctions when they were running surpluses.

Why would the private sector be complaining that the government is not issuing debt? I thought that the government only could fund itself on the good graces of the same sector? It is because government bonds are the safest asset you could have in your portfolio. Short of randomly taking out loans in Russian roubles, the Australian government cannot default and is not a default risk.
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132511
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

The Politics Thread 2020

Post by greeneyed »

@Mickey... I don’t think I’m confused about any of the issues raised... I’m an economist and spent my entire career working in government in Canberra. I fully understand how The Treasury, the RBA etc work. I’ve done my best to explain how it actually works...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
John Ferguson
Posts: 2224
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by Mickey_Raider »

greeneyed wrote: September 10, 2020, 2:49 pm @Mickey... I don’t think I’m confused about any of the issues raised... I’m an economist and spent my entire career working in government in Canberra. I fully understand how The Treasury, the RBA etc work. I’ve done my best to explain how it actually works...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Likewise I believe I have gone a fair way to explaining how things work.

I think at this point all I can do is leave you with a quote from the late great Mark Twain:

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."
Canberra Raiders: Est. 1982 .... 89,90,94

RAIDERS TILL I DIE!
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11321
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by gangrenous »

greeneyed wrote:@Mickey... I don’t think I’m confused about any of the issues raised... I’m an economist and spent my entire career working in government in Canberra. I fully understand how The Treasury, the RBA etc work. I’ve done my best to explain how it actually works...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sounds like GE spent the 20th century guzzling Harvard.
User avatar
zim
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8230
Joined: July 8, 2015, 3:38 pm
Favourite Player: Past: Brett Mullins
Present: Elliot Whitehead
Location: Sydney

Re: The Politics Thread 2020

Post by zim »

This was funny:

Post Reply