Comments for Ambit Gambit

Comment on IMF says Howard ran structural surpluses by Graham

Graham — Fri, 24 May 2013 05:26:21 +0000

The graph does not count asset sales John, so I’m not sure where you are coming from with your complaint about Howard’s privatisations, which anyway were mostly the fulfilment of programs started under Labor.

You’ll also find that Australian private sector debt continues to be quite high. There has been no great unwinding, which puts the lie to the suggestion that the government has to borrow extra to make up for some perceived shortcoming in the private sector.

You’ll also find that a lot of private sector debt is for productive assets, and you can’t say that for government debt at the federal level.

Underlying your post is an assumption that you need borrowing to have growth, but that is not mathematically correct. Debt and equity are just two ways of investing that bring with them different rights. What you need is a system where people with surplus wealth and an inability to use it to generate high returns are married up with people without the wealth but with the opportunity.

It’s the brokerage performed by the financial system that counts most, not how you allocate rights between owners, entrepreneurs and investors.

Comment on Fine cuts – tell me about public service overmanning or featherbedding by cars

cars — Fri, 24 May 2013 00:41:16 +0000

Buying a used car can be tricky, no matter how much you already
know about cars. There are lots of different things to consider so that you don’t end up buying a piece of junk that breaks down right away. Use some great tips of the trade in the following article to help you make your next car choice.

Comment on IMF says Howard ran structural surpluses by Alan B. Goulding

Alan B. Goulding — Fri, 24 May 2013 00:26:38 +0000

Have to agree with John A.T.
Boom and bust cycles are never ever a product of Govt policy, but rather, terms of trade.
Moreover, Howard was the beneficiary of China’s quite spectacular growth. And essentially, that is basically all the graph shows, along with terms of trade.
Howard used the mining boom mark one to write out cheques for folks, who’d never ever been previously entitled, and or, provide tax breaks for folk who didn’t need them.
This done even as the overwhelming bulk of corporate Australia, relocated head office offshore, taking their company tax liabilities with them!
A much smarter option would have been to use the additional revenue provided by mining boom mark one, to create an income earning sovereign fund, which would have allowed us to develop our own remaining offshore resources, rather than leave it to the whim and caprice, of on again off again foreign speculators!
By now, billions could’ve been flowing into and further bulking up our own sovereign wealth fund, which would have made quite a spectacular difference to our budget position, now today!
As would have been the former tax rates he lowered for the much better off, and the roll back of the welfare for the rich, he rolled out while in office!
He also is the dullard, (economic illiterate) who preferred the highly regressive inordinately complex GST.
Which basically transferred the tax burden from the haves to the have nots, who by the way, were already being squeezed by bracket creep!
He could have and should have introduced instead, the transactions tax he refused and erroneously labelled as regressive.
At least that way, some of our tax avoiding guest multinationals, with annual budgets much larger than many sovereign nations, would have not been so easily able to escape paying a fair share of a common burden!
Alan B. Goulding

Comment on IMF says Howard ran structural surpluses by John A T

John A T — Thu, 23 May 2013 22:13:15 +0000

Graham,
You need to read Professor Bill Mitchell’s blog of yesterday’s date.
Howard and Costello balanced their budget by selling public assets,a policy started by those other neo-liberals Hawke and Keating. Instead of the low burden costs of a sovereign government deficit, demand, in the Howard era, was supported by large private citizen deficits in the way of large mortgages and credit card debt.
Repayment of those debts made increased government spending an imperative once the private financial bubble burst.
Neo-liberal policies were responsible for the present need for deficits. Under utilising of underemployed labour and domestic manufacturing resources is still the problem, not the budget.
The IMF is dominated by neo-classical economists. They are persisting in pro-cycle policies when those austerity programs are the opposite of what is required.
The USA, the UK and Southern Europe will not escape the present situation until modern versions of Keynesian policies are adopted.

Comment on Take me ABC by Mick

Mick — Thu, 23 May 2013 08:21:56 +0000

I think the ABC should be left alone. Various governments can’t go around removing elements of our society which don’t necessarily conform to its agenda.

And I would like to see its budget increased so they don’t have to keep playing old programs to fill in space.

Repeats are annoying……………………

I did a cartoon on that last year sometime.

http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/humorous-illustration/#jp-carousel-650

Cheers

Mick

Comment on Take me ABC by Saki

Saki — Thu, 23 May 2013 00:30:36 +0000

This is an excellent idea. Go for it. Personally, I find the ABC somewhat less than balanced, in that it shies away from real dissent. The other evening on QandA the panel was asked about proportional representation and the anti-democratic nature of compulsory preferences. Both these questions were cleverly avoided. While extensive coverage is given to three women locked in a house in the USA, not one second was given to a demonstration for marriage equality in front of Tony Abbot’s house. Indeed, the ABC has taken to calling it homosexual or gay marriage, which is deliberately provocative. My impression is that the current content of the ABC is superficial and slightly to the right of centre .

Comment on Politifact – fact, but is it truth? by Alan B. Goulding

Alan B. Goulding — Mon, 20 May 2013 00:37:34 +0000

Apart from mathematical certainties, like 4.8% of 6875 is 330, and immutable truths, like energy can be neither created or destroyed!
All other “facts” are what we believe to be true, or are able to accept?
I mean, there is a flat earth society in London.
Some religious fundamentalists, believe the earth is just 6,000 years old, and we all came from Adam and Eve!
With such a small gene pool and all that incest; and the survival rate? It’s a wonder we aren’t all dribbling diabolical drop-kicks or demented diminutive dwarfs?
Others take the theory of evolution to be a literal truth?
Others believe the very adaptability of species, is evidence of intelligent design? [Perhaps our reality is a very realistic dream we all share?]
However, none seem so blind or pedantic, than the rusted on political Ideologue! [Such a nice party, more tea anyone?]
That said, it would be nice to have a fact checking, fact finding service, always providing, it’s the facts they want published or revealed?
How does one access this service?
Or is it limited to a very select private club, whose real goal, is the revelation of very selective facts, or the subversion of others, if they challenge conventional wisdom or particular belief systems?
Alan B. Goulding

Comment on Politifact – fact, but is it truth? by John B

John B — Sun, 19 May 2013 23:29:25 +0000

I tend to favour my own version of the truth – ie, often left-ish. This comes with a rejection of others’ versions of their own truths – eg some of Andrew Bolt’s writings.

Whether that indicates as stated above that “emotional, attitudinal and philosophical grounds” are or are not the primary determinants of opinion, I can only guess.

However, and as stated in the last sentence of the article, Politifacts seem not to realise that there are indeed two kinds of truth.

Literal truth is a simple concept, known to all 5-year-olds. This is not susceptible to emotional, attitudinal and philosophical nuance. Either it is the truth or it is not. Politifacts are on strong ground there.

They have failed, at least in their initial Australian topics, to consider language, context and so forth, where these are essential to understanding.

I had hoped for much more than they have delivered. Maybe they should stick to checking literal truths and hold back on the other stuff until they get some runs on the board.

Comment on Do deficits and debt really matter? by John B

John B — Sun, 19 May 2013 04:49:40 +0000

There seem to be two “John” contributors.

I went first and second.

Ross, pardon my slowness in responding – I have now added this site to my address book, so future messages won’t end up in the spam folder.

I am familiar with some mathematical models regarding creation and flows of fiat money, but I cannot understand your second sentence. Possibly, we are close to agreement, but at present the key sentence is gobbledy-gook. What do you mean by “excelled”?

Comment on Do deficits and debt really matter? by Ross

Ross — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:33:30 +0000

John I’m not providing you with mere opinion.It is a mathematical reality that imputs in terms of loans from increases in growth by private banks to our Govts,will always be always be excelled by outputs in terms of debt on growth + inflation.

Unless we have new growth in the mining/energy industry,debt created by our OS bansksters will totally enslave us all.