That redistribution of wealth requires wealth to redistribute.What's your point?
You can only write so many cheques whilst the economy is haemorrhaging before you’re just handing out pretty pieces of paper.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That redistribution of wealth requires wealth to redistribute.What's your point?
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.
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 societyHigher taxes for sure you’d expect- but reasonable price to pay given the circumstances.
Because money is, at the end of it all, simply a method of exchanging energyI 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.
Was a paedophile.
I have always wondered how the likes of Hawke/JFK/LBJ/Nixon/Roosevelts (relatively competent policy-makers but flawed people) would have been received in the MeToo/Trump era.
We recently got a taste of what it's like to live in an actual socialist country!
View attachment 845403
... with their war council comprised entirely of big business.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’.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.I'm sure there are many consequences, but right now it's more a case of "lesser of two evils" than perfect policy.
I really can't see a permanent UBI in a country like Australia.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.
Here's where things get a bit murky for me.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.
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?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.
Economic control and social control tend to go hand in hand, and you see that in all manner of societies.I dispute the amount of examples coupled with the conflation of capitalism and democracy.