Tony Abbott - Do you want him as PM? (3 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

so your alternate solution would be to let the economy sort out itself? translation= do absolutely nothing and hope for the best.

you liberals need to understand that the world doesn't fix itself.

Instead we should stimulate it with borrowed funds and have only a fraction of this spending replicated in actual growth.

Wait, that's a stupid idea.

 

[Lauchlan]

Instead we should stimulate it with borrowed funds and have only a fraction of this spending replicated in actual growth.

Wait, that's a stupid idea.

i disagree with that bolded statement - show me the evidence.

also, if you havent already noticed, the stimulus is not relevent to this thread.

 

[Lauchlan]

YouTube - The facts on Tony Abbott's record as Health Minister

YouTube - Health reform debate

watch these videos and comment on tony abbott

 

[Chemical Ali]

YouTube - The facts on Tony Abbott's record as Health Minister

YouTube - Health reform debate

watch these videos and comment on tony abbott

he is a great Australian hero and patriot

what's so hard about that?

 

[fixing]

Tony Abbot is too much of a breaking.

 

[Lauchlan]

he is a great Australian hero and patriot

what's so hard about that?

Cool story bro

Tony Abbot is too much of a breaking.

of a breaking what?

 

[fixing]

Cool story bro



of a breaking what?

He's not a fixing.

therefore he is shit

hence he is a breaking

 

[Lauchlan]

He's not a fixing.

therefore he is shit

hence he is a breaking

.........ok

 

[withoutaface]

i disagree with that bolded statement - show me the evidence.

also, if you havent already noticed, the stimulus is not relevent to this thread.

I have evidence not just that it didn't work, but that treasury tried to conceal this fact:

For those playing at home, this means 1 in every 8 dollars spent on stimulus is reflected in economic growth.

 

[Lentern]

I have evidence not just that it didn't work, but that treasury tried to conceal this fact:

For those playing at home, this means 1 in every 8 dollars spent on stimulus is reflected in economic growth.

It's the jobs stupid. Once they do fall those jobs take a long time to recreate, whether through government, market or other job creation methods. Yes one in eight dollars of growth has been gotten back for the eight this year, but we'll get another buck for our eight next year, actually slightly more, and even more the next year. The cost of the a recession isn't just the negative growth its also the capital that could have been created in that period but wasn't because people weren't working.

 

[Lauchlan]

I have evidence not just that it didn't work, but that treasury tried to conceal this fact:

For those playing at home, this means 1 in every 8 dollars spent on stimulus is reflected in economic growth.

source?

 

[Rothbard]

It's the jobs stupid. Once they do fall those jobs take a long time to recreate, whether through government, market or other job creation methods. Yes one in eight dollars of growth has been gotten back for the eight this year, but we'll get another buck for our eight next year, actually slightly more, and even more the next year. The cost of the a recession isn't just the negative growth its also the capital that could have been created in that period but wasn't because people weren't working.

Then again why not invest 100% of Government funds into stimulus 24/7?

 

[Riet]

Or just don't have any taxes.

 

[withoutaface]

source?

Did the stimulus work? at Catallaxy Files

It's the jobs stupid. Once they do fall those jobs take a long time to recreate, whether through government, market or other job creation methods. Yes one in eight dollars of growth has been gotten back for the eight this year, but we'll get another buck for our eight next year, actually slightly more, and even more the next year. The cost of the a recession isn't just the negative growth its also the capital that could have been created in that period but wasn't because people weren't working.

1. You're arguing the equivalent of employing people to dig holes and fill them in again.
2. When you direct capital to areas of the economy artificially stimulated it hurts growth in the long term compared to having just some of that capital redirected to areas where there's long term potential for super fun happy widgets. Compare also to tax cuts (which would also stimulate the economy, we could've slashed the corporate tax rate to 10% or bumped the tax free threshold significantly).
3. What the graph actually shows is a statistically insignificant correlation between stimulus and economic growth, but that even if we go by the treasury's numbers, it doesn't show anything close to the mythical Keynesian multiplier we keep hearing about.

 

[-Lemon-]

Did the stimulus work? at Catallaxy Files

1. You're arguing the equivalent of employing people to dig holes and fill them in again.
2. When you direct capital to areas of the economy artificially stimulated it hurts growth in the long term compared to having just some of that capital redirected to areas where there's long term potential for super fun happy widgets. Compare also to tax cuts (which would also stimulate the economy, we could've slashed the corporate tax rate to 10% or bumped the tax free threshold significantly).
3. What the graph actually shows is a statistically insignificant correlation between stimulus and economic growth, but that even if we go by the treasury's numbers, it doesn't show anything close to the mythical Keynesian multiplier we keep hearing about.

1. Yes digging holes and employing people to fill them in them would be better than nothing.
2. Incoherent assertion.
3. Incorrect assertion.

Please refrain from voicing your shitty thoughts,
it's yuk.

 

[withoutaface]

1. Yes digging holes and employing people to fill them in them would be better than nothing.
2. Incoherent assertion.
3. Incorrect assertion.

Please refrain from voicing your shitty thoughts,
it's yuk.

Don't throw stones in glass houses champ


it's not stimulatory.

 

[Lentern]

Then again why not invest 100% of Government funds into stimulus 24/7?

In a period of market decline the government dollar goes a lot further than in a period of market stability or market growth. The difference between 94 and 95% employment is a lot bigger than that between 95 and 96% employment. When that number really starts falling it snowballs, it doesn't snowball up. Ultimately the Joe Hockeys and the Scuba Steves of the world have a point, the debt does need to be paid off but the two options are:
-Destroy capital, undo several years of creating wealth before finally the machine stabilizes and begins clawing its way back up. Or
-Stimulate, go into deficit, keep producing capital until the machine has regathered its momentum then put a comparably small drag on it to raise the funds to repay the debt.

1. You're arguing the equivalent of employing people to dig holes and fill them in again.
2. When you direct capital to areas of the economy artificially stimulated it hurts growth in the long term compared to having just some of that capital redirected to areas where there's long term potential for super fun happy widgets. Compare also to tax cuts (which would also stimulate the economy, we could've slashed the corporate tax rate to 10% or bumped the tax free threshold significantly).
3. What the graph actually shows is a statistically insignificant correlation between stimulus and economic growth, but that even if we go by the treasury's numbers, it doesn't show anything close to the mythical Keynesian multiplier we keep hearing about.

1. No, I'm not talking about creating jobs for jobs sake I'm saying creating jobs for production sake there is a difference. There could be improvements in the stimulus:

I heard Karl Kruzelnicki on the radio the other day saying that given all the subsidization that goes into the coal industry now the real difference in cost between solar power and coal is negligible, I tend to think that might have been better investment than school halls, pink batts and 900 dollars no questions asked.

Anyone who knows anything about water will tell you that recycling is undeniably the best way to address the water shortage so I tend to think water recycling facilities might have been another wiser way to stimulate the economy.

That is not creating jobs for no other reason than having people earning money which is what you have asserted, it is because people who are working produce real capital(most of them anyway, I'm not a fan of accountants) people who aren't don't

2. You are wrong it does not hurt anything in the long term it allows growth to be sustained for the long term, it creates real capital, it means the difference between children of employed parents having world class educations (which sadly requires some private assistance in this modern Australia) and the abilities that come with them as opposed to the bare minimum and a lifetime of moving boxes in warehouses and distribution centers.

3. The graph is short sighted, overly simplistic and generally wrong.

 

[withoutaface]

That graph is what the treasury produced to show correlation.

When you employ people to take on suboptimal tasks you briefly mask a bunch of numbers which make your government look bad, but you delay the ability of the real economy to recover and rehire because you're snatching most of the cream off the unemployed labour pool. If you really wanted to stimulate employment you'd offer something like an exemption or reduction in payroll tax for all companies, everywhere, for 6 months to a year (if that comes out of the states' pockets, then reimburse them).

 

[Lauchlan]

*sigh* i hate it when Lentern + someone who disagrees with him turn my threads into an economic debate.

 

[Lentern]

*sigh* i hate it when Lentern + someone who disagrees with him turn my threads into an economic debate.

Yes well I hate that you feel the need to create more threads for when there are half a dozen threads which your original point could have fit into quite neatly.