Remove this Banner Ad

Stimulus package

  • Thread starter Thread starter gbear
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Northalives said:
Orwellian paranoia ? **** off ! You are just an apologist for the "market forces" extremists.
Are you a product of the School Of The Americas ? You certainly are defending the Empire with all your vigour.
Click to expand...

If you don't have "market forces" then you have "market interference". Who interferes? Who gets a say in who interfers?

"The stimulus package is NOT to ease the pain for the stockbrokers, speculators, bankers etc. etc ; it is to help the everyday person and their families to retain a decent and dignified existence - it is not about fixing the curse of capitalism."

The intent of the stimulus package may not be to "ease the pain for the stockbrokers, speculators, bankers etc. etc" but that is precisely what it will do. Feed the "plebs" and the "plebs" feed the system.

"the only way to fix the problem is to cut capitalism's balls off !"

And replace it with?
 
Relativity said:
If you don't have "market forces" then you have "market interference". Who interferes? Who gets a say in who interfers?

"The stimulus package is NOT to ease the pain for the stockbrokers, speculators, bankers etc. etc ; it is to help the everyday person and their families to retain a decent and dignified existence - it is not about fixing the curse of capitalism."

The intent of the stimulus package may not be to "ease the pain for the stockbrokers, speculators, bankers etc. etc" but that is precisely what it will do. Feed the "plebs" and the "plebs" feed the system.

"the only way to fix the problem is to cut capitalism's balls off !"

And replace it with?
Click to expand...

Once you spot a crank, you are best to leave them be.
 
another interesting article on Keynes (which is relevant as his, is the doctrine that will save us all. apparently ;) )

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a861325c-f394-11dd-9c4b-0000779fd2ac.html

Keynes and the triumph of hope over economics

By Benn Steil
Published: February 5 2009 20:06 | Last updated: February 5 2009 20:06


This is a glorious moment to be an economist. In good times, we are mostly marginalised by the cheerful churnings of the market. But in those rare times when it all goes to hell, we are truly in our element. Now the politicians really need us. Who else can tell them how to reverse a recession by borrowing a trillion dollars? Henry Kissinger? Madeleine Albright? Yeah, right. What were their theses on?

And indeed, we as a profession are making our voices heard in a way we never get the chance to do when the credit is flowing, businesses are investing and consumers buying what business wants to sell. Then, we make arguments based on data, otherwise known as “facts”, processed through regression analysis and logical rigour, which few humans read. (I know, I am an economics journal editor.) Now, on the other hand, we call for trillion dollar stimulus plans on the basis of little more than citing John Maynard Keynes – and politicians revere us. Citing Keynes gives us special licence to talk economics without using any. To paraphrase the lawyers’ dictum, when the facts are on our side, we pound the facts; when theory is on our side, we pound theory; and when neither the facts nor theory are on our side, we pound Keynes – and to great effect.

Keynes, not coincidentally, had nothing to say about the proper components of fiscal stimulus. This allows him to be cited with great effect by both paternal progressives (who favour government spending) and caring conservatives (who favour middle-class tax cuts).

To be sure, economists have published peer-reviewed technical analyses of the efficacy of government spending and tax cuts. But when nature fails us we console ourselves with Scripture, not science, and when markets fail us we turn to Keynes. His famous quip that “In the long run we are all dead” is a profoundly satisfying justification for borrowing a trillion dollars, right now, never mind that it contradicts an essential insight of our discipline: in the words of Frédéric Bastiat from 1848: “The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen” – in other words, the long run.

One of these good economists was Bastiat’s fellow Frenchman Jacques Rueff, who in a 1947 journal article attacking The Fallacies of Lord Keynes’s General Theory pointed out that governments “have a choice between only two solutions: to allow the apparatus of production to adapt itself to the structure which, by the movement of prices, the will of the consumers tends to impose upon it, or to adapt the desires of consumers by authoritative regulation to the structure of the productive apparatus which we do not propose to change”. And insofar as the government’s “investment programme diverts means of production from the areas where they are more desired to less useful employments, it will reduce the standard of living”.

But Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman, who calls today “The Keynesian Moment”, justifies such a trillion dollar investment programme on precisely the Keynesian foundations that Rueff demolished – the claim that money “would otherwise be sitting idle”. When Mr Krugman buys his stimulus bonds, I am curious where the “idle” money will come from. Will he sell stocks? Bonds? Withdraw funds from the banking system? If it is not to come from a cash box, it is not idle, and Mr Krugman can only fall back on the hope that the government will use his funds more productively than businesses can.

But hope is precisely the platform on which President Barack Obama ran during his campaign. Hope has enabled the president to raise the estimate for the number of jobs his stimulus plan will create from 2.5m to 3m and then to 4m in the space of just a few short speeches. It is the ultimate faith-based initiative. In the spirit of unity he promised to bring to Washington, his proposal comprised 60 per cent new spending and 40 per cent tax cuts, the same proportion as that of Democrats to Republicans in Congress. Yes, we can!

“Thanks be to Heaven, we are thus freed from all this terrifying apparatus of economics,” to paraphrase Rousseau’s fictional Savoyard Vicar. “We have at less cost a more assured guide in this immense labyrinth of human opinions.”

The writer is director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and co-author of Money, Markets and Sovereignty (Yale University Press)
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Hey, was just wondering if anyone knows if the government put something in place to stop double-dipping? Or whether it was intended all along?

I was working full-time for the 2nd half of 07, and started studying full time at the start of 08. Started getting youth allowance at the start of 09 (once i finally earnt enough to classify as independant)

Just curious as to what to expect


cheers
 
Crow-mo said:
another interesting article on Keynes (which is relevant as his, is the doctrine that will save us all. apparently ;) )

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a861325c-f394-11dd-9c4b-0000779fd2ac.html

Keynes and the triumph of hope over economics

By Benn Steil
Published: February 5 2009 20:06 | Last updated: February 5 2009 20:06


This is a glorious moment to be an economist. In good times, we are mostly marginalised by the cheerful churnings of the market. But in those rare times when it all goes to hell, we are truly in our element. Now the politicians really need us. Who else can tell them how to reverse a recession by borrowing a trillion dollars? Henry Kissinger? Madeleine Albright? Yeah, right. What were their theses on?

And indeed, we as a profession are making our voices heard in a way we never get the chance to do when the credit is flowing, businesses are investing and consumers buying what business wants to sell. Then, we make arguments based on data, otherwise known as “facts”, processed through regression analysis and logical rigour, which few humans read. (I know, I am an economics journal editor.) Now, on the other hand, we call for trillion dollar stimulus plans on the basis of little more than citing John Maynard Keynes – and politicians revere us. Citing Keynes gives us special licence to talk economics without using any. To paraphrase the lawyers’ dictum, when the facts are on our side, we pound the facts; when theory is on our side, we pound theory; and when neither the facts nor theory are on our side, we pound Keynes – and to great effect.

Keynes, not coincidentally, had nothing to say about the proper components of fiscal stimulus. This allows him to be cited with great effect by both paternal progressives (who favour government spending) and caring conservatives (who favour middle-class tax cuts).

To be sure, economists have published peer-reviewed technical analyses of the efficacy of government spending and tax cuts. But when nature fails us we console ourselves with Scripture, not science, and when markets fail us we turn to Keynes. His famous quip that “In the long run we are all dead” is a profoundly satisfying justification for borrowing a trillion dollars, right now, never mind that it contradicts an essential insight of our discipline: in the words of Frédéric Bastiat from 1848: “The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen” – in other words, the long run.

One of these good economists was Bastiat’s fellow Frenchman Jacques Rueff, who in a 1947 journal article attacking The Fallacies of Lord Keynes’s General Theory pointed out that governments “have a choice between only two solutions: to allow the apparatus of production to adapt itself to the structure which, by the movement of prices, the will of the consumers tends to impose upon it, or to adapt the desires of consumers by authoritative regulation to the structure of the productive apparatus which we do not propose to change”. And insofar as the government’s “investment programme diverts means of production from the areas where they are more desired to less useful employments, it will reduce the standard of living”.

But Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman, who calls today “The Keynesian Moment”, justifies such a trillion dollar investment programme on precisely the Keynesian foundations that Rueff demolished – the claim that money “would otherwise be sitting idle”. When Mr Krugman buys his stimulus bonds, I am curious where the “idle” money will come from. Will he sell stocks? Bonds? Withdraw funds from the banking system? If it is not to come from a cash box, it is not idle, and Mr Krugman can only fall back on the hope that the government will use his funds more productively than businesses can.

But hope is precisely the platform on which President Barack Obama ran during his campaign. Hope has enabled the president to raise the estimate for the number of jobs his stimulus plan will create from 2.5m to 3m and then to 4m in the space of just a few short speeches. It is the ultimate faith-based initiative. In the spirit of unity he promised to bring to Washington, his proposal comprised 60 per cent new spending and 40 per cent tax cuts, the same proportion as that of Democrats to Republicans in Congress. Yes, we can!

“Thanks be to Heaven, we are thus freed from all this terrifying apparatus of economics,” to paraphrase Rousseau’s fictional Savoyard Vicar. “We have at less cost a more assured guide in this immense labyrinth of human opinions.”

The writer is director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and co-author of Money, Markets and Sovereignty (Yale University Press)
Click to expand...

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ?
You have got to be joking ?
Anyone with a modicum of awareness of world affairs and with any semblance of intelligence, would not quote anything that comes out of the CFR and propose that it is in anyway unbiased and that it should be taken seriously.
 
Relativity said:
If you don't have "market forces" then you have "market interference". Who interferes? Who gets a say in who interfers?

"The stimulus package is NOT to ease the pain for the stockbrokers, speculators, bankers etc. etc ; it is to help the everyday person and their families to retain a decent and dignified existence - it is not about fixing the curse of capitalism."

The intent of the stimulus package may not be to "ease the pain for the stockbrokers, speculators, bankers etc. etc" but that is precisely what it will do. Feed the "plebs" and the "plebs" feed the system.

"the only way to fix the problem is to cut capitalism's balls off !"

And replace it with?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I cannot, at the minute, spend much time in front of the computer to explain my thoughts and the reasoning behind these thoughts.
When I am capable, I will further engage in this discussion/debate with you.
 
Northalives said:
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ?
You have got to be joking ?
Anyone with a modicum of awareness of world affairs and with any semblance of intelligence, would not quote anything that comes out of the CFR and propose that it is in anyway unbiased and that it should be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I think you've demonstrated that you do not have a modicum of awareness, but thanks for your thoughts comrade :thumbsu:

ps. that was quoted in the Financial Times, and I dare say they have a slightly higher awareness of world affairs than your good self.
 
I'm finding all this quite hard to follow.

I am not assuming that I will get the $900 to save myself the disappointment when I don't get it.

But...

I am 20, my household income is <80,000 and I filed a tax return last year, but got all of it back (less than 10k earned I think)

Do I qualify?
 
Look at your notice of assessment for the year ended 30 June 2008.

If the amounts at A + O > G then you will get the bonus. (provided you don't have some sort of abnormal circumstances)

You ignore whether you got a tax refund or had to pay tax when you got your notice of assessment and how much PAYG tax your employer withheld from your pay.

The above is confirmed @

Fact Sheet
2009 Updated Economic and Fiscal Outlook
$900 Tax Bonus for Working Australians
 

Remove this Banner Ad

You are eligible to receive the payment if:
- your adjusted tax liability for 2007-08 is greater than zero (that is, you paid tax)



So despite the fact I got all my money back on my tax return, I would still be eligible?
 
whattagun07 said:
You are eligible to receive the payment if:
- your adjusted tax liability for 2007-08 is greater than zero (that is, you paid tax)



So despite the fact I got all my money back on my tax return, I would still be eligible?
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote in post # 88. If A+O > G on your 30 June 2008 notice of assessment then yes.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom