BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Depends, running up huge debts and spending the money unproductively is also cuntish to the country.

we all seem to be obsessed with deficits since the financial crash, as if government spending was the cause of the economic disaster (this doesn't apply as directly to australia, i know, but the rhetoric is pernicious).

i'm so tired of peoples' hack opinions on economics, talking about national fiscal policy as if the government are running a household. domestic finances do not work the same way as national ones, especially vis-a-vis debt.

Who said it was the cause of the disaster? No-one.

Explain how running up so much debt that a nation can't even afford to pay the interest, let alone the debt, makes any sense.
And the point of taking on debt to spend unproductively.

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

it's like when people say how great the clinton era was for the economy... then you look at the figures... and you're like "wtf". this whole idea that your outgoing shouldn't exceed your incoming (tax and revenue) is utterly specious.

Stop reading The Economist.

The only people who benefit from racking up debt are bankers and bondholders. Short term debt to pay for immediate items? Sure, fine. Long term debt in order to fund the every day functions of government? Just about the worst thing you can do as a country.

Last edited by uziq (2015-08-10 09:52:50)

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Is it possible that AUS, Europe, and the U.S. economy require completely different economic models in order for their societies to function? There is a difference in human cultures and we agree that different ways of government is better for different people. Why wouldn't different places need different economic models too. It seems pretty liberal and arrogant to think your system is the one that is the one true way to regulate your economy.

Last edited by Pocshy2.0 (2015-08-10 11:36:14)

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Most European economies have been running steadily for several hundred years or more without requiring massive debt or tax and spend government policies to get them going.

no, they had extractionary/accumulative regimes of empire and conquest instead, or massive slave/indentured labour, or industrial workforces who lived in sordid conditions and were treated like a race of sub-humans, without rights or property, serving only a tiny minority elite. and if things got too bad, well, you could always enclose some more commons or set up a trading company in ceylon. yes, european economies worked marvellously for several hundred years... because they had no pretense of the modern 'state' as we conceive it (i.e. a client relationship where services are rendered for taxation), and the only major money they needed to raise was for war (or aristocratic follies).

you're a real history buff dilbert.

uziq wrote:

that was the part where you were supposed to make a point, only you didn't. the relative 'security' of western economies from the late 17th to 19th centuries isn't really proof of sound fiscal planning, is it?

Jaekus wrote:

Tony Abbott is like the Mr Bean of politics.

I haven't seen someone bumble around and get into so much shit in one week and somehow still have a job. I'm seeing comments on news sites from people who said they've voted LNP for 30 years or more and said they're not going to vote for him come next election. Surely his own party are going to boot him out well before then.

Cybargs wrote:

i think tones really wants to get fired. I mean he really does enjoy being in the opposition!

Dilbert_X wrote:

Many European countries never had an empire, for some I'll bet their 'empires' were net drains on their economies, and no public debt is not a 'structural necessity'. It produces a lot of money for a small number of bankers, that is all.

And no, security and stability are two different things, these are English words, you should know this.