That redistribution of wealth requires wealth to redistribute.
You can only write so many cheques whilst the economy is haemorrhaging before you’re just handing out pretty pieces of paper.
Politics So I guess when the s**t hits the fan, everyone's a socialist
- Thread starter Mofra
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You can only write so many cheques whilst the economy is haemorrhaging before you’re just handing out pretty pieces of paper.
nobbyiscool
Cancelled
WWE Board
Goosed
Sweet F.A Sikh Volunteers Charity Match
Tasmanian Team
NFL Fantasy Comp Champion
Armchair Endzone Major Comp Champion
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,110
- 23,511
I sometimes think that the globalised economy is such that it's not even pretty pieces of paper (ie. faux cash), it's only ever numbers on a page isn't it?
Wealth and debt doesn't mean much for wealthy countries. It only means something when it's poor countries that we refuse to help. And society is a microcosm of that.
- Mar 17, 2009
- 3,328
- 2,520
- AFL Club
- Essendon
If they believe what they spout there’s no way they’ll go higher taxes. Will prove whether or not they were just planning on stealing from society
Because money is, at the end of it all, simply a method of exchanging energy
For those who came across this quote given with zero context, it is likely sourced from Conservapedia. Here is a discussion of what could be the source of it:
Was John Maynard Keynes a child molester?
I was reading Conservapedia's article on John Maynard Keynes and pederasty: Keynes and his friends made numerous trips to the resorts surrounding the Mediterranean. At the resorts, little ...
For those who want a real laugh, read https://www.conservapedia.com/George_Orwell
Where they claim an anarchic-syndicalist is conservative. Because somehow in their fragile little minds recognising that Soviet-style totalitarianism does not represent many things that are good and decent in the world means you also reject increasing all people's accesses to essential goods and services or the brutality of a draconian Social Darwinism, often unfairly driven by inherited wealth and opportunity and other social privileges.
The OP raises an interesting point here though, and one I have been considering all week. How much easier would this be to deal with if we lived in a society where over 70% of housing was government-owned and citizens could rent appropriate housing. Their rent would be means-tested and be more empowered on every level to live with the peace of mind that it was "their home". In this society, mainstream banking, utilities, the building of infrastructure, education, health, major industrial farms and extraction of natural resources were nationalised. Capitalism would work where it does best, in consumerism, but we'd have Marxist policies of greater company ownership by workers of the company rather than outside shareholders. Society would still be dynamic and innovative with the government having large investment grants for startups. These weren't giveaways but would mean the government had bought shares in the company. Also, recognising that the greatest driver of innovation in the last century has been free thought and experimentation in public universities. So, greatly expanding their investment in their research departments as well as bringing back more job security through tenure for staff.
Finally, all adults tax file number was a welfare/medicare number as well.
Public housing would mean that not only would we avoid the real estate bubble we've created in the last two decades be avoided, but it would also mean that the government would now not rely upon individual investors letting people not pay rent for a few months. Without having to generate more cash the government could provide that relief. The banks being nationalised means we don't live in a ridiculous society where a few private organisations basically tax the whole economy 5%, the government could relieve private businesses having to repay their loans through this crisis, rather than finding imaginary money to pay them. The tax file/medicare/welfare link means it would be easy to trace that someone has lost income right now and could redirect money to them. Rather than have the crazy system we're having at Centrelink now.
I fear for the US. While we've seen the dangers of an ageing population in Italy we're going to see the dangers of extreme capitalism/corporatism in the US, as well as having a buffoon who played the role of a billionaire on reality TV for president. When people lose their jobs in the US they lose their medical insurance. Half a million people are homeless. Some people are worried about the $3000 per month for a family who's breadwinner loses their job ... because it will be more than they were earning!! The place is a mess. All while they are run by a dim-witted, thin-skinned man-child who takes narcism to a new level and believes conspiracy theories and takes the advice of religious zealots who would prefer things were open for easter.
Finally, all adults tax file number was a welfare/medicare number as well.
Public housing would mean that not only would we avoid the real estate bubble we've created in the last two decades be avoided, but it would also mean that the government would now not rely upon individual investors letting people not pay rent for a few months. Without having to generate more cash the government could provide that relief. The banks being nationalised means we don't live in a ridiculous society where a few private organisations basically tax the whole economy 5%, the government could relieve private businesses having to repay their loans through this crisis, rather than finding imaginary money to pay them. The tax file/medicare/welfare link means it would be easy to trace that someone has lost income right now and could redirect money to them. Rather than have the crazy system we're having at Centrelink now.
I fear for the US. While we've seen the dangers of an ageing population in Italy we're going to see the dangers of extreme capitalism/corporatism in the US, as well as having a buffoon who played the role of a billionaire on reality TV for president. When people lose their jobs in the US they lose their medical insurance. Half a million people are homeless. Some people are worried about the $3000 per month for a family who's breadwinner loses their job ... because it will be more than they were earning!! The place is a mess. All while they are run by a dim-witted, thin-skinned man-child who takes narcism to a new level and believes conspiracy theories and takes the advice of religious zealots who would prefer things were open for easter.
What do you mean? We're going to have a general election between two men who have unanswered allegations of sexual assault. Trump brags about it.
That was capitalism.
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
And now we have a Social Wage.....these bloody lefties
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Remember back during the 2007 election when the Greens called for a Social Wage
And all the Neocons said stuff like "Crazy people, how would we pay for something like that"....."The Greens are like the Fairies at the bottom of Garden handing out wishes"
Those same people were strangely quiet yesterday
And all the Neocons said stuff like "Crazy people, how would we pay for something like that"....."The Greens are like the Fairies at the bottom of Garden handing out wishes"
Those same people were strangely quiet yesterday
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I’d be interested to know how much architecture was required to come up with the idea of ‘let’s give business a big fat subsidy’.
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,063
- 198,285
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #413
... with their war council comprised entirely of big business.
In this case the government have at least learned the lessons from the GFC stimulus, which corrected the problems with the 'fightback' package of the early 90s. Everyone is looking at the big scary numbers of the total package while I guarantee the bean counters are nervously staring at one figure above all else - the unemployment rate.
The GFC stimulus supported the unemployment rate by a massive 1.6% (Treasury figures, not mine). That may not sound like much but the ongoing effect on taxable revenue minus the reduction in welfare it would otherwise have attracted meant the package actually cost far less when amortised over a period of years.
I'd say there would have been number-crunching based on the same measures in Frydenberg's office, especially when the government are paying 0.25% in headline terms, and the RBA can buy government debt at will as the inflation genie has disappeared for the foreseeable future.
I'm not saying it wasn't the right decision (although the government are building a massive rod for their own backs if this crisis persists and inflation takes off).
I'm just saying it was hardly Greg Combet coming up with a brilliant idea. As soon as they doubled the unemployment payment, they were effectively forced into providing a huge wage subsidy just to prevent a voluntary mass-exodus from the employment sector.
I'm just saying it was hardly Greg Combet coming up with a brilliant idea. As soon as they doubled the unemployment payment, they were effectively forced into providing a huge wage subsidy just to prevent a voluntary mass-exodus from the employment sector.
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,063
- 198,285
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #415
There was always going to be a 'round 2' of economic support, although I'll admit to being surprised at the size and the scope of it.
It really does seem a case of "hibernate now, BaU later" to the whole approach. They may well be proven correct. TBH I can't see inflation being an issue for a long long time, especially with some Euro central banks offering negative interest rates before the Covid19 crisis hit.
Abe had the Japanese printing presses running as soon as he hit office and it barely raised an inflation ripple. We live in a time when all the economic rules seem to have flaws so in policy terms central banks are 'muddling'.
That was then, this is now. All governments around the world are spending like crazy, and the global economy is in shutdown. It's all very well saying that Australia should borrow and spend, but it's not like there's other countries out there with cash burning a hole in their pocket that needs a home. Somewhere along the line all that debt has to be based on something. We are looking at an ever-increasing pile of loans underpinned by real global productive value that is shrinking by the day.
Governments are gambling on being able to knock this over quickly and ramp production up again before the impact of all this borrowing and spending hits. My worry is that if this crisis continues, they will have painted themselves into a corner. By the time it becomes apparent they need to spend huge amounts of money on actually transforming the economy to function productively under a 'new normal', they will be unable to do so because they are effectively locked into massive ongoing spending commitments to subsidise people's earnings. Other countries that acted with more restraint will have greater capacity to spend, and overtake us, leaving us moribund.
I am sure plenty of people would say I am being alarmist, and indeed I think it would be unlikely that we would get to that point. But a lot of people are acting like there are no real consequences to this sort of wanton spending on things that - fundamentally - have no economic value.
Last edited:
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,063
- 198,285
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #417
I'm sure there are many consequences, but right now it's more a case of "lesser of two evils" than perfect policy. It's been an almighty backflip from the government so they seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation, and the potential of being one of the first OECD nations to enter the recovery phase of the crisis.
What I am seeing is a lot of people saying "whoohoo, this will push us towards a UBI!" whilst failing to recognise that a UBI only works in a country where per capita GDP is growing.
- Moderator
- #420
These discussions about the 'failures' of capitalism always focus on the absurdly wealthy 0.000001 percent and those in poverty at the other end of the scale.
They never look at the middle class +/-, or the overwhelmingly amazing quality of life provided by Capitalism (as opposed to the demonstrably inferior quality of life provided by Communist and purely Socialist nations).
Be honest with yourself here. Would you rather live in North Korea, or South Korea? Hong Kong or Communist China? East Germany or West Germany (pre the Wall coming down)? The USA or the USSR? Cuba or Panama?
While Capitalism has problems in the outliers (extreme poverty at the lower end, and extreme wealth at the top end) it provides a far superior quality of life for the majority in the middle, and it also (this is often forgotten) avoids single party tyrannical States forming as always happens in purely socialist or communist Nations.
They never look at the middle class +/-, or the overwhelmingly amazing quality of life provided by Capitalism (as opposed to the demonstrably inferior quality of life provided by Communist and purely Socialist nations).
Be honest with yourself here. Would you rather live in North Korea, or South Korea? Hong Kong or Communist China? East Germany or West Germany (pre the Wall coming down)? The USA or the USSR? Cuba or Panama?
While Capitalism has problems in the outliers (extreme poverty at the lower end, and extreme wealth at the top end) it provides a far superior quality of life for the majority in the middle, and it also (this is often forgotten) avoids single party tyrannical States forming as always happens in purely socialist or communist Nations.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,746
- 55,988
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #421
Here's where things get a bit murky for me.
Is the success of Capitalism in the wake of WW2 something that would've happened anyway (due to America's greater manufacturing facility, coupled with the fact that Russia/the USSR were engaged at the time in a bloody civil war) or, were the positions of both economies reversed (the USSR having been unified by the war, and their economy enhanced by it, and there being no war on home soil; America with half of the nation seeking to tear it apart and with a diabolical winter coupled with extremely outdated logistics) would communism have gotten itself off to a better start, and a different outcome?
While acknowledging the validity of your comment - that, on current examples, capitalism appears to provide better outcomes for the majority of people - I dispute the amount of examples (over a rather short time period; both systems have only truly had 100-150 years to prove/disprove themselves) coupled with the conflation of capitalism and democracy inherent in your final point. Is it capitalism or democracy (with all its checks and balances designed to keep single party states from arising most of the time) that keep dictators/fascism at bay?
I'm not advocating communism, either. Just, I find the certainty by which you're asserting this stuff to be a touch unsettling.
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,063
- 198,285
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #422
Those who talk about 'capitalism' (without defining the type of capitalism they support) always seem to compare best vs worst case scenarios as well, ignoring the fact China is far more capitalist than people give it credit for. Many would suggest that social democracies have the balance right - would you rather live in Denmark vs Zimbabwe? Finland or Greece?
A true correlation exists between the level of free democracy vs how authoritarian a state is, and that exists independently of the type of capitalism that exists in a state.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,746
- 55,988
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #423
Not to mention that Soviet style Communism was strictly hierarchical, which one could argue is antithetical to communism as ideology anyway; it would always result in single party states.
Economic control and social control tend to go hand in hand, and you see that in all manner of societies.
Generally speaking capitalism tends to oppose concentrated economic power (most obviously by favouring competitive markets), which assists in the maintenance of democracy.
That’s not to say unfettered capitalism can’t be profoundly antidemocratic, but there’s less synergy there than in the case of communism.
- Jul 30, 2018
- 11,782
- 15,176
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #425
What a beautiful form of socialism it is
www.smh.com.au
Six months in jail, $11,000 fine for leaving home without a 'reasonable excuse’
The public health order gives police sweeping power to enforce the latest round of coronavirus restrictions.
Similar threads
- Poll
